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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is a non-final First Office Action.
This action is in response to communications filed on 11/30/2022.
Claims 1-11 are pending and have been considered.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1- 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by PARK ET AL, KR 101549236 B1 (“PAR“).
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK ET AL, KR 101549236 B1 (“PAR“) in view of JP H0756448 B2 (“JPH “).
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK ET AL, KR 101549236 B1 (“PAR“) in view of Hulkkonen et al Digital Twin for Monitoring Remaining Fatigue Life of Critical Hull Structures, 18th Conference on Computer Applications and Information Technology in the Maritime Industries (COMPIT2019), March 2019 (“HUL”)
Claims 4, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK ET AL, KR 101549236 B1 (“PAR“) in view of Guo et al Bayesian Uncertainty Quantification for Functional Response, INTECH 2017 (“GUO”)
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK ET AL, KR 101549236 B1 (“PAR“) in view of Panetta et al US 20090193899 A1 (“PAN”) in further view of Luque et al, Spatial Probabilistic Modeling of Corrosion in Ship Structures, ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part B: Mechanical Engineering SEPTEMBER 2017, Vol. 3 {“LUQ”)
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK ET AL, KR 101549236 B1 (“PAR“) in view of Panetta et al US 20090193899 A1 (“PAN”) in further view of Luque et al, Spatial Probabilistic Modeling of Corrosion in Ship Structures, ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part B: Mechanical Engineering SEPTEMBER 2017, Vol. 3 {“LUQ”) in further view of RESOLUTION MSC.461(101) (adopted on 13 June 2019) AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL CODE ON THE ENHANCED PROGRAMME OF INSPECTIONS DURING SURVEYS OF BULK CARRIERS AND OIL TANKERS, 2011 (2011 ESP CODE) (“MSC461”)
Priority
The application claims priority to the 371 of PCT/JP2021/037224 with a filing date of 10/07/2021, based on a Japan National Application JP2020-191656 with filing date 11/18/2020. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). No translation of the application has been provided.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/08/2023, 12/13/2023, 06/25/2024, 01/22/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Notations, Abbreviations and Conventions used.
The number in the parenthesis, following next to a claim number, when used, is the number of the parent claim.
The following abbreviations are used:
BRI = Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
POSITA = Person of Ordinary Skill in The Art
101 - 35 USC § 101
102 or 103 = 35 USC § 102 or 335 USC § 103
(S1)/(S2A1)/(S2A2) (S2B) = Steps 1, 2AProng , 2AProng2, and 2B of the multi-step eligibility analysis in the Alice/Mayo framework
{ } text from the reference
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations use the words “unit configured to” in at least, for example, ‘a strain response spectrum acquisition unit configured to”, “a wave spectrum acquisition unit configured to”, “an RAO acquisition unit configured to”, “a correction amount calculation unit configured to”, “a strain response spectrum estimation unit configured to” in claim 1, “a plate thickness acquisition unit configured to “ , “a plate thickness estimation unit configured to”, “an RAO calculation unit configured to” in claim 2.
The 112(f) interpretation applies to dependent claims 3-9 as well.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim recites calculating the correction amount for each property of a member of the floating structure. The specification discloses examples of members such as plate structures, bone structures and intersections, and further states a neural network model may be prepared for each property to output correction amounts based on position and wave conditions.
However, the specification does not adequately describe the claimed requirement of calculating a correction amount for each property member because:
The disclosed examples are for types of members not to a set of properties
The specification recites [0036] may prepare a function for calculating a correction amount for a property of each member such as a general plate structure, a bone structure, and an intersection between bones.
the specification does not identify or define the set or properties
The specification does not describe how correction amounts are determined for different properties
The specification provides only generalized and result oriented statements (e.g. that a function or NN model may be prepared)
Accordingly the specification fails to reasonability convey to a POSITA that the inventor had possession of the full breadth of what is claimed (“each property…”)
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 directed to an ineligible judicial exception.
Claims are analyzed under the Alice/Mayo framework to determine whether the claims are directed to an ineligible judicial exception. Recitation of judicial exceptions are highlighted in bold font. Paraphrased language, shown in italics, is used to simplify reference. Claims with similar limitations, although not verbatim identical, that share the same rationale under Alice/Mayo steps Step 1 (S1) and Steps 2 Prongs A1, A2 and B (S2A1, S2A2, S2B) are grouped. The analysis is performed on a representative claim of each group. An additional analysis is performed if any claims in the group includes additional limitations.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception (abstract idea, mental process and mathematical concept) without significantly more.
(S1) Prima facie, claims 1-11 are each directed to a statutory category of invention: process (Claim 10 directed to a method), machine (claims 1-9 directed to a device) and manufacture (claim 11 directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium).
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
(S2A1)
Claim 1, representative for claims 10, 11, recites recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
a strain response spectrum acquisition unit configured to acquire a strain response spectrum at an installation position at which a strain sensor is installed on a floating structure, the strain response spectrum being calculated based on a measurement value from the strain sensor;
a wave spectrum acquisition unit configured to acquire a wave spectrum of a wave at a position where the floating structure is located;
an RAO acquisition unit configured to acquire a strain response function (response amplitude operator (RAO)) at the installation position of the strain sensor and a strain response function (RAO) at a non-installation position of the strain sensor, calculated based on a structure model of the floating structure;
a correction amount calculation unit configured to calculate, based on the strain response spectrum and the strain response function (RAO) at the installation position of the strain sensor, the wave spectrum, and a formula expressing a relationship among the strain response spectrum and the strain response function (RAO) at the installation position of the strain sensor and the wave spectrum, a correction amount for a difference between a theoretical value of the strain response spectrum at the installation position of the strain sensor calculated from the strain response function (RAO) and the wave spectrum and the strain response spectrum at the installation position of the strain sensor; and (the limitation recites calculations of a correction for a difference, formula expressing relationship between spectrum and strain response function, which are recitations of mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships.)
a strain response spectrum estimation unit configured to estimate, based on a theoretical value of the strain response spectrum at the non-installation position calculated from the strain response function (RAO) and the wave spectrum at the non-installation position of the strain sensor, and the correction amount, the strain response spectrum at the non-installation position. (the limitation recites calculations of a correction for a difference, formula expressing relationship between spectrum and strain response function, which are recitations of mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships. With the aid of tools, such as pen and paper, the operations could also be performed by the human mind)
The claim recites the following limitations calculate a correction factor based on difference between measured strain spectrum at a sensor location and a calculated one based on a model for that location, and calculate strain response spectrum at a different location based on a model and correction factor According to the MPEP 2106.04 II. B guidance when multiple limitations reciting abstract ideas these should be combined for analysis as a single abstract idea. Thus, the claim recites a process aimed at: “Calculate strain spectrum at a location based on a model and correction factor calculated for a location for which data is provided” .
This is a combination that covers performance of limitations expressing mathematical concepts like [mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations. These are Mathematical Concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection I) Accordingly, claim 1, representative for claims 10, 11 recites an abstract idea. (Certain elements of evaluation and estimation could also be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper and may be indicative of mental process).
The additional elements “calculation unit,” “spectrum estimation unit,” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, which is equivalent to instructions to implement the abstract idea “by a computer” or “on a computer” (used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f))
(S2A2)
Other additional elements recite activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claims. Specifically, the claim elements of acquiring strain response, acquiring wave spectrum, acquiring a stress response function are considered either pre-solution activity because they are mere gathering or pre-processing data/information in conjunction with the abstract idea (see MPEP §2106.05(d);
The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the claims only amount to Mere Instructions to Apply the judicial Exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))).) which the courts courts have identified did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception.
(S2B)
Claim 1 representative for claims 10, 11 does not include additional elements, which individually or in combination amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As analyzed in step S2A2 the additional elements recite Mere Instructions to Apply the judicial Exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)), and/or a general link to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h). Regarding the Insignificant Extra Pre-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), for situations substantially similar to those here, these additional elements, including data gathering, data manipulation recited at high level of generality were found by the courts to be Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)). One should also mention that if for example calculating strain response spectrum would have been found not an abstract idea, it would have been WURC- such calculations are not even presented in the specification: [0016] “The method for calculating the strain response spectrum is known, and thus is not described in the present specification.” If not assuming known it would have generate a 112(a) rejection.
When considered as a whole, with additional elements in an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim only amount to instructions of data gathering and to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Additional elements elaborate on the identified abstract idea but do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing about the computing environment or the additional steps that is significant or meaningful to the underlying judicial exception because the identified abstract idea “Calculate strain spectrum at a location based on a model and correction factor calculated for a location for which data is provided”, could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information. There is no inventive concept beyond the judicial exception, and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, it is concluded that claims 1, 10, 11 are ineligible.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Claim 2 further recites:
(2A) a plate thickness acquisition unit configured to acquire information on a plate thickness of a structure to which a plate thickness sensor is installed, measured by the plate thickness sensor, the plate thickness sensor being installed at a position that is identical to or different from the strain sensor;
(2B) a plate thickness estimation unit configured to estimate a plate thickness at the
non-installation position of the strain sensor based on the plate thickness measured by the plate thickness sensor and a plate thickness at any position measured during an inspection; and
(2C) an RAO calculation unit configured to calculate the strain response function (RAO) at the non-installation position of the strain sensor by using the plate thickness estimated by the plate thickness estimation unit,
(2D1) wherein the RAO acquisition unit acquires the strain response function (RAO) calculated by the RAO calculation unit, and
(2D2) the strain response spectrum estimation unit calculates the strain response spectrum based on the strain response function (RAO) acquired.
The claim continues to recite, and further reinforces/elaborates on the abstract idea in the parent claim. The bolded claim elements recite abstract idea (mathematical concepts, mental process). The additional elements further recited by the claim are of the same nature as those identified in the parent claim, specifically Mere Instructions to Apply the judicial Exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)), and Insignificant Extra (Pre-Solution ) Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) limitations of data gathering, data manipulation which recited at high level of generality were found by the courts to be Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)). data manipulation and mere instructions to apply an exception ((MPEP 2106.05(f) ).
When considered individually or in combination, the additional elements do not provide any specific improvements and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. Therefore, these claim elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is thus directed to a judicial exception.
When considered individually and in combination, the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept beyond the judicial exception, and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Claim 2 is thus found ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 3-9 respectively, further recite:
3(1) wherein
(3A) the plate thickness acquisition unit acquires information on a plate thickness measured by the plate thickness sensor installed on an upper deck of the floating structure, and
(3B) the plate thickness estimation unit estimates the plate thickness at the non-installation position, based on a relationship between a thinning amount of the plate thickness of the upper deck and a thinning amount of the structure at the non-installation position.
4(1) wherein
(4A) the correction amount calculation unit calculates a correction amount for correcting a difference in a peak position, a correction amount for correcting a difference in a peak value, and a correction amount for correcting a difference in a distribution width between a waveform expressing a frequency distribution of a strain response spectrum indicated by the theoretical value of the strain response spectrum and a waveform expressing a frequency distribution of a strain response spectrum indicated by the strain response spectrum at the installation position of the strain sensor
5(1) wherein
(5A) the correction amount calculation unit calculates the correction amount corresponding to each of different positions of the floating structure.
6(1) wherein
(6A) the correction amount calculation unit calculates the correction amount for each wave condition indicated by the wave spectrum at a position where the floating structure is located.
7(1) wherein
(7A) the correction amount calculation unit calculates the correction amount for each property of a member of the floating structure
8(4) wherein
(8A) the correction amount calculation unit uses a Bayesian network to model a relationship among the correction amount L for correcting the difference in the peak position, the correction amount K for correcting the difference in the peak value, the correction amount S for correcting the difference in the distribution width, the strain response function (RAO), the wave spectrum, a function that outputs the theoretical value of the strain response spectrum calculated from the strain response function (RAO) and the wave spectrum, the strain response spectrum after correction obtained by correcting the theoretical value of the strain response spectrum using the correction amount L, the correction amount K, and the correction amount S, and a measured value of the strain response spectrum calculated based on a value measured by the strain sensor, and calculates the correction amount L, the correction amount K, and the correction amount S through back analysis based on the measured value of the strain response spectrum
The analysis of claims 3-9 follows the same pattern and arguments as for the parent claims, Each of these claims continues to recite, and further reinforces/elaborates on the abstract idea in the parent claim. The bolded claim elements recite abstract idea (mathematical concepts, mental process). The additional elements further recited by the claim are of the same nature as those identified in the parent claim, specifically Mere Instructions to Apply the judicial Exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)), and Insignificant Extra (Pre-Solution ) Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) limitations of data gathering, data manipulation which recited at high level of generality were found by the courts to be Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)). data manipulation and mere instructions to apply an exception ((MPEP 2106.05(f) ).
When considered individually or in combination, the additional elements do not provide any specific improvements and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. Therefore, these claim elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is thus directed to a judicial exception.
When considered individually and in combination, the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept beyond the judicial exception, and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims 3-9 are thus found ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by PARK ET AL, KR 101549236 B1 (“PAR“).
Re Claims 1, 10, 11- reciting substantially similar limitations, PAR teaches:
a strain response spectrum acquisition unit configured to acquire a strain response spectrum at an installation position at which a strain sensor is installed on a floating structure, the strain response spectrum being calculated based on a measurement value from the strain sensor; {[Abstract] a load sensing unit disposed on the first point to measure a level of a load acting on the first point in real time. [Before eq 1.] Based on the stored RAO and measured marine state of each stored load, the short-term response of the load can be calculated using Equation (1) . Here, MPEV .sub.R means the most probable extreme value of each load, that is, the short-term response of each load, and n means the number of waves during the measurement time. Hs is the significant wave, Tz is the mean wave period, θ is the wave incident angle, and ω is the angular frequency of the wave. In .sub.addition, S R (ω│H S, T Z, θ) is for each sea state and a response spectrum of each load}
a wave spectrum acquisition unit configured to acquire a wave spectrum of a wave at a position where the floating structure is located; {[Abstract] an oceanic information collecting unit which collects the marine state information around the ship in real time; [description of embodiments] For example, the sea state information can be a wave scatter diagram (Wave Scatter Diagram) and a wave spectrum (Wave Spectrum) of the designed sea area}
an RAO acquisition unit configured to acquire a strain response function (response amplitude operator (RAO)) at the installation position of the strain sensor and a strain response function (RAO) at a non-installation position of the strain sensor, calculated based on a structure model of the floating structure;{[Abstract] a load sensing unit disposed on the first point to measure a level of a load acting on the first point in real time; [2] The load sensing unit 200 has a function of measuring a size of a load acting on a first point in real time and can be provided at least one point on the hull. The load sensing unit 200 may include a bending moment sensing unit 210 for measuring a bending moment acting at a first point and a fatigue load sensing unit 220 for measuring a fatigue load at the first point. For example, a strain gage or an optical fiber gauge may be used as the bending moment sensing unit 210. [Description of embodiments] The database unit 100 stores a load RAO (Response Amplitude Operator) which can store various types of loads and their sizes that can be operated on an arbitrary marine vessel, and can calculate various types of load sizes }
a correction amount calculation unit configured to calculate, based on the strain response spectrum and the strain response function (RAO) at the installation position of the strain sensor, the wave spectrum, and a formula expressing a relationship among the strain response spectrum and the strain response function (RAO) at the installation position of the strain sensor and the wave spectrum, a correction amount for a difference between a theoretical value of the strain response spectrum at the installation position of the strain sensor calculated from the strain response function (RAO) and the wave spectrum and the strain response spectrum at the installation position of the strain sensor; a strain response spectrum estimation unit configured to estimate, based on a theoretical value of the strain response spectrum at the non-installation position calculated from the strain response function (RAO) and the wave spectrum at the non-installation position of the strain sensor, and the correction amount, the strain response spectrum at the non-installation position.{[Abs] and a control unit to compare the calculation load of the first point in correspondence to the oceanic condition information collected in real time with the measured load of the first point measured by the load sensing unit in real time to calculate a correction coefficient, and to apply the correction coefficient to the calculation load of the second point in correspondence to the oceanic condition information collected in real time to correct the calculation load of the second point. [Before eq 1.] Based on the stored RAO and measured marine state of each stored load, the short-term response of the load can be calculated using Equation (1) . Here, MPEV .sub.R means the most probable extreme value of each load, that is, the short-term response of each load, and n means the number of waves during the measurement time. Hs is the significant wave, Tz is the mean wave period, θ is the wave incident angle, and ω is the angular frequency of the wave. In .sub.addition, S R (ω│H S, T Z, θ) is for each sea state and a response spectrum of each load}
Re Claim 5 (1) PAR teaches the limitations of the parent claim. PAR further teaches:
wherein the correction amount calculation unit calculates the correction amount corresponding to each of different positions of the floating structure. {The short term response of each load calculated from the above equation can be calculated by the control unit 300… The hull according to the present embodiment may include a first point and a second point. The first point is a point at which the load sensing unit 200 is provided in the hull, and the second point is a point at which the load sensing unit 200 Means a point not provided. When referring only to 'hull', it means a point including both the first point and the second point of the hull. …[between eq 3 and 4] The load correction unit 330 can correct the load acting on the second point by applying the correction coefficient calculated by the central processing unit 310 to the calculation load of the second point. That is, the corrected load acting on the second point in accordance with the state of the sea state changing in real time can be calculated by Equation (4). Therefore, even if the sensing unit capable of detecting the load applied to the hull is provided only at a certain point in the environment where the sea condition is continuously changed, the strength and safety of the entire hull can be measured and measured in real- It can be judged. }
Re Claim 6 (1) PAR teaches the limitations of the parent claim. PAR further teaches:
wherein the correction amount calculation unit calculates the correction amount for each wave condition indicated by the wave spectrum at a position where the floating structure is located. { [Before eq 1.] Based on the stored RAO and measured marine state of each stored load, the short-term response of the load can be calculated using Equation (1) . Here, MPEV .sub.R means the most probable extreme value of each load, that is, the short-term response of each load, and n means the number of waves during the measurement time. Hs is the significant wave, Tz is the mean wave period, θ is the wave incident angle, and ω is the angular frequency of the wave. In .sub.addition, S R (ω│H S, T Z, θ) is for each sea state and a response spectrum of each load}}
In view of the specification( [0032]) wave condition is frequency and wave direction. wave incident angle is wave direction, wave period provides measure of wave frequency (its inverse).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims that share substantially similar limitations (even though not verbatim) are grouped and analyzed together; the analysis is done on the claim with most comprehensive limitations. The parenthesis following a claim number indicates the parent claim.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK ET AL, KR 101549236 B1 (“PAR“) in view of JP H0756448 B2 (“JPH “).
Re Claim 7 (1) PAR teaches the limitations of the parent claim. PAR does not teach, however JPH teaches:
wherein the correction amount calculation unit calculates the correction amount for each property of a member of the floating structure. { JP H0756448 B2 The correction parameter is stored by the correction parameter determining means for determining the correction parameter according to the plate thickness, and the correction parameter determined by the correction parameter determining means is used to obtain an error value by an error correction formula to calculate the plate thickness.}
(also in view of the specification “a property” , and not “each property” – see also 112(a) rejection - In view of the specification that refers to plate as being an example of a member of the floating structure, and thickness being a property of the plate.)
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of PAR with JPH. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of more accurate corrections which depend on the properties of the component. Both PAR and JPH are dealing with correction methods, and implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the elements disclosed by PAR and JPH would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over PAR/ JPH
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK ET AL, KR 101549236 B1 (“PAR“) in view of Hulkkonen et al Digital Twin for Monitoring Remaining Fatigue Life of Critical Hull Structures, 18th Conference on Computer Applications and Information Technology in the Maritime Industries (COMPIT2019), March 2019 (“HUL”)
Re Claim 9 (1) PAR teaches the limitations of the parent claim. PAR also teaches a fatigue load database unit 120 based on design lifetime and accumulated fatigue load calculated by Eq2. PAR does not teach the use of a SN diagram , however HUL teaches:
further comprising a degradation estimation unit configured to estimate remaining service life of the structure at the non-installation position of the strain sensor based on the strain response spectrum at the non-installation position estimated by the strain response spectrum estimation unit, and an SN diagram. {see at least p424
PNG
media_image1.png
528
725
media_image1.png
Greyscale
{ p425 top] The D should be in general less than 1.0 and the time covered by now-cast data in relation of expected ships lifetime indicates the remaining fatigue life.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of PAR with HUL . One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of taking precautionary measures as one risk increases with approach of lifetime end , which both references measure with fatigue and rapid determination of a result from a table instead of doing time-consuming calculations. Both PAR and HUL are dealing with determining fatigue and lifetime, and implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the elements disclosed by PAR and HUL would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over PAR/ HUL
Claims 4, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK ET AL, KR 101549236 B1 (“PAR“) in view of Guo et al Bayesian Uncertainty Quantification for Functional Response, INTECH 2017 (“GUO”)
Regarding claim 4(1) PAR discloses the limitations of the parent claim. PAR discloses the correction unit, calculating correction based on strain response, though it does not disclose correction in peak position, peak value, distribution width – which are the characteristics parameter of common/Gaussian distributions and would be common to any spectrum correction/calibration. GUO however discloses:
the correction amount calculation unit calculates a correction amount for correcting a difference in a peak position, a correction amount for correcting a difference in a peak value, and a correction amount for correcting a difference in a distribution width between a waveform expressing a frequency distribution of a strain response spectrum indicated by the theoretical value of the strain response spectrum and a waveform expressing a frequency distribution of a strain response spectrum indicated by the strain response spectrum at the installation position of the strain sensor. {Fig 5
PNG
media_image2.png
636
912
media_image2.png
Greyscale
} peak position is interpreted as mean, distribution width as variance.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of PAR with GUO . One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of correcting/calibrating over the entire spectrum – probability distribution function. GUO presents a mathematics based calibration method that is generally applicable regardless of the specific domain of application. Combining the elements, of a general method of calibration with the specific application problem in need of calibration over a spectrum of frequencies using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the elements disclosed by PAR and GUO would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over PAR/ GUO
Regarding claim 8 (4) PAR/GUO discloses the limitations of the parent claim. PAR/GUO discloses the correction/calibration for distributions based on measured strain. GUO further discloses:
the correction amount calculation unit uses a Bayesian network to model a relationship among the correction amount L for correcting the difference in the peak position, the correction amount K for correcting the difference in the peak value, the correction amount S for correcting the difference in the distribution width, the strain response function (RAO), the wave spectrum, a function that outputs the theoretical value of the strain response spectrum calculated from the strain response function (RAO) and the wave spectrum, the strain response spectrum after correction obtained by correcting the theoretical value of the strain response spectrum using the correction amount L, the correction amount K, and the correction amount S, and a measured value of the strain response spectrum calculated based on a value measured by the strain sensor, and calculates the correction amount L, the correction amount K, and the correction amount S through back analysis based on the measured value of the strain response spectrum. {[Abstract] A Bayesian framework is presented to deal with the model calibration in the case of functional response; Section 3.2. Bayesian calibration; [p122] On the other hand, the inverse problem is to estimate the values of model parameters θ such that it makes the model’s output fit the experimental data as accurate as possible (or satisfy some precision requirements).; p124 The inverse problem of uncertainty quantification is implemented in an updated formulation with a Bayesian approach [1]. In model (13), the
metamodel, ϕ(x, θ), and discrepancy function, η(x), are both Gaussian processes:
Following the methodology introduced in Section 3, metamodels can be established for the simulation data and discrepancy function, with Gaussian process regression models. In our example, we obtained 92 simulation data to build GPs and 20 observations for calibration. The posterior distribution of the calibration parameter is also displayed in Figure 5.’ [P127[ So far, we have accomplished calibrating a metamodel in the Bayesian framework using the experimental data, which accounts for parameter uncertainty and corrects the model discrepancy and experimental uncertainty.}
PNG
media_image2.png
636
912
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Back analysis interpreted in view of the specification, which uses the term, as regression analysis. Correction amount as the values of the discrepancy function.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of PAR/GUO with further teaching of GUO. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of performing the calculations needed for correction with a classic, convention method proven by decades of use (the Bayesian network).
Both PAR/GUO and further teaching of GUP are in the same art, and implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the elements disclosed by PAR/GUO would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over PAR/ GUO.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK ET AL, KR 101549236 B1 (“PAR“) in view of Panetta et al US 20090193899 A1 (“PAN”) in further view of Luque et al, Spatial Probabilistic Modeling of Corrosion in Ship Structures, ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part B: Mechanical Engineering SEPTEMBER 2017, Vol. 3 {“LUQ”)
Regarding claim 2(1) PAR discloses the limitations of the parent claim. PAR also teaches
wherein the RAO acquisition unit acquires the strain response function (RAO) calculated by the RAO calculation unit, and the strain response spectrum estimation unit calculates the strain response spectrum based on the strain response function (RAO) acquired.{ the RAO of each load stored in the database unit 100 is a response amount of each load to a wave of 1 m wave height having a specific wave incident angle and a wave period. Based on the stored RAO and measured marine state of each stored load, the short-term response of the load can be calculated using Equation (1).
PNG
media_image3.png
114
281
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Here, MPEV .sub.R means the most probable extreme value of each load, that is, the short-term response of each load, and n means the number of waves during the measurement time. Hs is the significant wave, Tz is the mean wave period, θ is the wave incident angle, and ω is the angular frequency of the wave. In .sub.addition, S R (ω│H S, T Z, θ) is for each sea state and a response spectrum of each load in the (Hs, Tz, θ), H R (ω│θ) is a wave incident angle (θ) Is the RAO of each load and S .sub.W (ω│H .sub.S , T .sub.Z ) is the wave spectrum (JONSWAP spectrum, Pierson-Moskovitz spectrum, etc.) at each sea state (Hs, Tz). The short term response of each load calculated from the above equation can be calculated by the control unit 300.}
PAR does not teach, however PAN teaches
a plate thickness acquisition unit configured to acquire information on a plate thickness of a structure to which a plate thickness sensor is installed, measured by the plate thickness sensor, the plate thickness sensor being installed at a position that is identical to or different from the strain sensor; and { [0007] In one embodiment, the present invention includes a novel application of birefringence stress/strain measurement methods to provide a fast, continuous spatial mapping of damaged portions or locations or regions in a metallic structure…varying the orientation of an acoustic wave-creating device, such as an Electromagnetic Acoustic Transducer (EMAT), in proximity to the internal or external surface of the structure and making various scans. … The invention also measures material properties of the scanned structure including thickness.}
an RAO calculation unit configured to calculate the strain response function (RAO) at the non-installation position of the strain sensor by using the plate thickness estimated by the plate thickness estimation unit, {Claim 5 wherein said strain value is determined using measurements for the thickness and the size of a plate, an I-beam, or a metal component.} interpreted as calculating strain as a function of the value of thickness.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of PAR with PAN. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of obtaining the information in easiest way with a widely available, low cost commercial sensor for thickness.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over PAR/PAN.
PAR/Pan does not teach, however LUQ teaches
a plate thickness estimation unit configured to estimate a plate thickness at the non-installation position of the strain sensor based on the plate thickness measured by the plate thickness sensor and a plate thickness at any position measured during an inspection; {[1. Introduction The model is learned with data from thickness measurements obtained during in-service inspection campaigns using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC). Two case studies are presented to investigate the correlation of the corrosion process and to exemplify the implementation of the hierarchical Bayesian model in real structures. [4. Discussion] Once the hyperparameters are estimated, it is possible to extrapolate inspection results to locations without inspections (due to the dependence structure defined with the hierarchical model) and predictions can be made about future corrosion performance (based on the corrosion function used in the model). [Conclusion] The model can be used to estimate multiple parameters of the deterioration process (such as corrosion rate and coating life) based on thickness measurements. }
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of PAR/PAN with LUQ. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of obtaining the information in cheapest, fastest and safest way, by using a model of how thickness varies over the entire structure and measuring at locations that are convenient, and from there estimating at other locations less convenient.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over PAR/PAN/LUQ.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK ET AL, KR 101549236 B1 (“PAR“) in view of Panetta et al US 20090193899 A1 (“PAN”) in further view of Luque et al, Spatial Probabilistic Modeling of Corrosion in Ship Structures, ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part B: Mechanical Engineering SEPTEMBER 2017, Vol. 3 {“LUQ”) in further view of RESOLUTION MSC.461(101) (adopted on 13 June 2019) AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL CODE ON THE ENHANCED PROGRAMME OF INSPECTIONS DURING SURVEYS OF BULK CARRIERS AND OIL TANKERS, 2011 (2011 ESP CODE) (“MSC461”)
Regarding claim 3(2) PAR/PAN/LUQ discloses the limitations of the parent claim. LUQ also teaches
the plate thickness estimation unit estimates the plate thickness at the non-installation position, based on a relationship between a thinning amount of the plate thickness of the upper deck and a thinning amount of the structure at the non-installation position. {{[1. Introduction The model is learned with data from thickness measurements obtained during in-service inspection campaigns using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC). Two case studies are presented to investigate the correlation of the corrosion process and to exemplify the implementation of the hierarchical Bayesian model in real structures.[2.4] 2.4 Corrosion Model. A corrosion function (example models are presented in Table 1) is combined with the proposed spatial Bayesian hierarchical model. It is assumed that the corrosion loss is zero before the coating breaks; [4. Discussion] Once the hyperparameters are estimated, it is possible to extrapolate inspection results to locations without inspections (due to the dependence structure defined with the hierarchical model) and predictions can be made about future corrosion performance (based on the corrosion function used in the model). [Conclusion] The model can be used to estimate multiple parameters of the deterioration process (such as corrosion rate and coating life) based on thickness measurements. }.
The claim estimates thickness at another position (or thinning, which is the reduction in thickness – in this case attributed to corrosion). While the upper deck is not indicated, the estimates are for any position based on the built model, including the upper deck.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of PAR/PAN/LUQ with further teaching of LUQ. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of determining thinning, such as due to corrosion by easier measurements of thickness and reduced thickness (thus thinning) through models of thinning/corrosion indicating relationships between different points in the structure..
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over PAR/PAN/LUQ.
PAR/PAN/LUQ does not teach, however MSC461 teaches
the plate thickness acquisition unit acquires information on a plate thickness measured by the plate thickness sensor installed on an upper deck of the floating structure, and {[p.32 5.7.3] provisions and arrangements for thickness measurements (i.e. access, cleaning/descaling, illumination, ventilation, personal safety);} As per specification the measurements are made in an area that is accessible. The reference teaches that the area for thickness measurements should be made in area with access, personal safety etc – which implies the upper deck).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of PAR/PAN/LUQ with MSC461. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of performing the measurements at a safe and accessible which can still provide the information needed.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over PAR/PAN/LUQ/MSC461.
Prior art made of record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Park et al, KR 101556303 B1
Yonemura et al US 20090177417 A1
Cusano et al US 20170369127 A1
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIAN STOICA whose telephone number is (571) 272-3428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. -5 p.m. PT.
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 on (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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188