DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the claims filed on Nov. 11th 2022. A summary of this action:
Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and mental process without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11,13-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu, Jiakun. A discrete modeling approach for progressive failure analysis of composite laminates and filament-wound pressure vessels. Cornell University. PhD Dissertation, 2020.
See the rejection below for the rationale on why some claims were not rejected in view of the prior art.
This action is non-final
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 .
Grace Period Exceptions to § 102(a)(1)
See the June 2023 IDS for its citations to Nguyen et al., # 35-36, as the Examiner notes that those disclosures, made by the instant inventive entity, appear to be related heavily to the instant application (e.g. see instant fig. 2C and 2D right-hand side; see the Part I 2020 reference, fig. 2, which appears to be this same figure, but the Part I reference is in color).
Both of these references are indicated by Sciencedirect (the hosting journal website) to have been published online on Nov. 16th, 2020 and name all and only the instant inventors as authors. The instant application was effectively filed on Nov. 15th, 2021, thus the grace period extends to Nov. 15th, 2020, and thus these two references do not qualify under § 102(a)(1) in view of § 102(b)(1).
MPEP § 2153.01(a): “A disclosure made within the grace period is not prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) if it is apparent from the disclosure itself that it is an inventor-originated disclosure. Specifically, Office personnel may not apply a disclosure as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) if the disclosure: (1) was made one year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; (2) names the inventor or a joint inventor as an author or an inventor; and (3) does not name additional persons as authors on a printed publication or joint inventors on a patent. This means that in circumstances where an application names additional persons as joint inventors relative to the persons named as authors in the publication (e.g., the application names as joint inventors A, B, and C, and the publication names as authors A and B), and the publication is one year or less before the effective filing date, it is apparent that the disclosure is a grace period inventor disclosure, and the publication is not prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and mental process without significantly more.
To address this rejection, the Examiner suggests incorporating the following subject matter, so as provide the improvement to technology described in the instant disclosure. MPEP § 2106.05(a): “That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. However, the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").”
¶ 49: “Generally, the compatible interface model 110e may enforce that nodes of the cohesive elements are located at the boundaries of potential intra-ply matrix cracks, as described further herein. The mesh generation tool 110d may utilize these constraints from the compatible interface model 11 Oe to partition the interlayer by generating strips in the directions of the two neighboring plies. In order to maintain a robust tie between the elements of the plies and those of the interlayer, the compatible interface model 110e may also include instructions to widen the strips corresponding to the interlayer by a width tolerance from the original width of the strips in the neighboring plies to shift the nodes slightly towards the bulk regions. Moreover, the compatible interface model 110e may include instructions that the in-plane element size may be smaller than the corresponding element size of the neighboring plies to ensure a proper level of connectivity to both neighboring plies with nonmatching meshes. In this manner, the compatible interface model 110e may create semi-discrete and compatible meshes given any arbitrary specimen shape without mesh correction measures, which is not achievable using conventional techniques” – and ¶ 88: “…To maintain a robust tie [tie constraint] between the elements of the plies and those of the interlayer, the tool 100d may widen the strips included in the set of interlayer partition features 306 by a tolerance from the ply width dcr to shift the set of fixed nodes 308 slightly towards the bulk regions of the composite laminate material.” And ¶ 90: “However, the nodes of the cohesive layer that will interact with matrix cracks first (e.g., node 328, referenced herein as "compatible nodes") are represented by dots emphasizing their placement near one or both of the first strip 324 and/or the second strip 326, thereby increasing the chances that the node will indeed interact with a matrix crack before other nodes disposed further from the strips 324, 326 within the composite laminate material…As a result, the composite laminate modeling application 110 may create semi-discrete and compatible meshes of cohesive layers within composite laminate materials given any arbitrary specimen geometry without implementing mesh correction measures.” -see ¶ 94 to clarify.
To clarify, the Examiner notes this while some of the dependent claims recite some minor aspects (e.g. claims 2-3 and 4-5) of what provides the alleged improvement, the dependent claims in their generality do not recite the particular steps in ordered combination with the requisite sufficient particularity (e.g. claims 2-3 and 4-5 taken in combination, but more narrowly reciting how they are interacting with all of the nodes in combination with the finite elements) conveyed in the disclosure for how the nodes are to be arranged in the computer data structure of the mesh for the FEM software to later use, i.e. there needs to be substantially more particularity.
To further clarify, this is referring to the “nodes”, i.e. the points in the particular computer data structure of FEM models wherein later calculations (e.g. integration) are to be performed at these nodes, but it is not claiming the math itself of the calculations, rather it is claiming how the FEM software, e.g. ABAQUS (¶ 44), is to interact with the mesh in a particular technological manner so as to provide the disclosed improvements noted above.
To clarify, at 2B (should the analysis be continued), see the evidence below, i.e. the particular ordered combination that provides the alleged improvement does not appear to be conventional, but the more generic recitations present in these current claims is conventional.
Thus, the Examiner suggests amending the claims to include such steps in particular ordered combination.
Should further clarification be required (specifically to describe in other words by the instant inventors the thrust of this advance, akin to the instant disclosure, but with color figures substantially identical to those in the instant disclosure), see the following journal paper related to the instant application:
Nguyen, Minh Hoang, and Anthony M. Waas. "Modeling delamination migration in composite laminates using an enhanced semi-discrete damage model (eSD2M)." International Journal of Solids and Structures 236 (2022): 111323.
See instant fig. 3A-3B, and accompanying descriptions, then see Nguyen figure 2 which has identical figures, and its accompanying description in § 3 ¶¶ 1-2 (akin to what the instant disclosure conveys as well), in particular ¶ 2 (see instant ¶¶ 49, 86, 88, 90 for a similar description).
For further clarification on the ordered combination of features, also see instant fig. 4D, and accompanying description (¶ 94)– a color version of this figure with annotations is provided in Nguyen fig. 3 (d) and accompanying description.
Step 1
Claim 1 is directed towards the statutory category of a process.
Claim 8 is directed towards the statutory category of an apparatus.
Claim 15 is directed towards the statutory category of an article of manufacture.
Claims 8 and 15, and the dependents thereof, are rejected under a similar rationale as representative claim 1, and the dependents thereof.
Step 2A – Prong 1
The claims recite an abstract idea of both a mental process and mathematical concept.
See MPEP § 2106.04: “...In other claims, multiple abstract ideas, which may fall in the same or different groupings, or multiple laws of nature may be recited. In these cases, examiners should not parse the claim. For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.”
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility.
The mathematical concept recited in claim 1 is:
and determining, by the one or more processors, a predicted mechanical response of the composite laminate material by: generating a constitutive model corresponding to the composite laminate material based on the FE mesh – math calculations in textual form. See ¶¶ 103-115, which clarify the constitutive model is a set of equations, for use in math calculations in textual form.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a mathematical concept – the above limitations are steps in a mathematical concept such as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed towards a mathematical concept, then it falls within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, as per MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2): “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)”
See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility.
The mental process recited in claim 1 is:
generating, using a mesh generation tool, a plurality of plies each shaped according to the specimen geometry, wherein each ply includes (i) a plurality of fibrous strips along a fiber direction and (ii) a bulk element between each of the plurality of fibrous strips, and – but for the mere instructions to it in on a computer, this is a mental process.
See fig. 2B-2C to clarify, i.e. its merely a person mentally visualizing (such as part of a mental observation/evaluation, physical aids such as pen and paper drawings would help) the stack-up of a composite material for each pile, where the fibers are, and then everywhere there is not a fiber there is a matrix material drawn with bulk elements.
A person is readily able to do such generation and produce a simple drawing such as fig. 2(C) or 2(D), but for the mere instructions to do this on a computer “using a mesh generation tool”.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of physical aids but for the recitation of a generic computer component. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. A person would readily be able to perform this process either mentally or with the assistance of physical aids. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility. In particular, with respect to the physical aids, see example # 45, analysis of claim 1 under step 2A prong 1, including: “Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation.”; also see example # 49, analysis of claim 1, under step 2A prong 1: “Moreover, the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind. Even if most humans would use a physical aid, like a pen and paper or a calculator, to make such calculations, the use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation.”
As such, the claims recite an abstract idea of both a mental process and mathematical concept.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
The following limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the “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”:
Preambles of independent claims
The following limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g):
The “receiving…” step is mere data gathering, similar with the “inputting…”
The “connecting…” step is mere data gathering and/or an insignificant computer implementation
A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) “…Instead, under Prong Two, a claim that recites a judicial exception is not directed to that judicial exception, if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Prong Two thus distinguishes claims that are "directed to" the recited judicial exception from claims that are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception…Because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself."). For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B” and MPEP § 2106(I): “Mayo, 566 U.S. at 80, 84, 101 USPQ2dat 1969, 1971 (noting that the Court in Diamond v. Diehr found “the overall process patent eligible because of the way the additional steps of the process integrated the equation into the process as a whole,”” – and see MPEP § 2106.05(e).
To further clarify, MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1): “Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980 (citing Mayo, 566 US at 71, 101 USPQ2d at 1965). Yet, the Court has explained that ‘‘[a]t some level, all inventions embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas,’’ and has cautioned ‘‘to tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law” See also Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The ‘directed to’ inquiry, therefore, cannot simply ask whether the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept, because essentially every routinely patent-eligible claim involving physical products and actions involves a law of nature and/or natural phenomenon").”
As a point of clarity, RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2) as well as MPEP § 2106.04(I): “Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea") (emphasis in original).
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
Step 2B
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements/limitations that amount to significantly more.
The following limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the “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”:
Preambles of independent claims
The following limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g):
The “receiving…” step is mere data gathering, similar with the “inputting…”
The “connecting…” step is mere data gathering and/or an insignificant computer implementation
In addition, the above insignificant extra-solution activities are also considered as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d):
The “receiving…” step is mere data gathering, similar with the “inputting…” - considered similar to the example WURC activity as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) of: “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;”
The “connecting” step at this level of generality is considered WURC. See:
Higuchi, R., et al. "Progressive failure under high-velocity impact on composite laminates: Experiment and phenomenological mesomodeling." Engineering Fracture Mechanics 178 (2017): 346-361. Fig. 6, as discussed in § 3.1: “In this study, for simplicity, the CZM was embedded for representing large transverse cracks on the bottom ply. Based on experiment observation, several rows of cohesive elements were inserted in the bottom ply at distances within 1.5 mm. Additionally, we used the SCM for fiber breakage and the CZM for delamination in order to correctly account for the energy dissipation. The abovementioned phenomenological model was named Model (I) for simple identification. For comparison, two conventional models (Models (II) and (III)) were prepared. Model (II) used the CZM for matrix cracks in all of the plies, while Model (III) used the CDM for matrix cracks in all of the plies. Fig. 6 depicts the conceptual scheme of each model. As indicated in Fig. 6, the tie connection function of Abaqus/Explicit [40] was used to connect the solid layer with the cohesive layer since these layers utilize different meshes (the cohesive layer uses a finer mesh due to a constraint from the cohesive zone length [41,42], described later in detail).” – see models (II) and (III), which have cohesive elements connecting, with tie connects, the mesh of the interface between the piles (this mesh being cohesive elements) to the meshes of the piles.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nguyen, Minh Hoang, and Anthony M. Waas. "A novel mode-dependent and probabilistic semi-discrete damage model for progressive failure analysis of composite laminates-Part I: Meshing strategy and mixed-mode law." Composites Part C: Open Access 3 (2020): 100073. See § I ¶ 3, then see § 3 ¶ 2: “Cohesive zone models and crack band methods are well established techniques to model cracks in a composite, [10] .”
Liu, Jiakun. A discrete modeling approach for progressive failure analysis of composite laminates and filament-wound pressure vessels. Cornell University. PhD Dissertation, 2020. See § 3.4 ¶ 3. See fig. 4.2-4.3, and accompanying descriptions, see § 4.6.1. Also note § 5.3: “Such surface-based constraints are commonly used in numerical simulations with virtually zero or small-thickness cohesive elements, and in these cases it is necessary and important to have properly defined tie constraints between all corresponding surfaces” and page 103-104: “Indeed, built-in cohesive elements (COH3D8, COH3D6) in Abaqus, by default, will have a nominal thickness of one, as is the case for matrix and delamination cracklet elements to occur in the next subsection.”
Liu, Jiakun, and Stuart Leigh Phoenix. "An auto-generated geometry-based discrete finite element model for damage evolution in composite laminates with arbitrary stacking sequence." Composites Part C: Open Access 3 (2020): 100066. § 1.3 starting at the paragraph describing the work of Higuchi et al., including the last paragraph as well.
Barile, Giacomo. "Numerical Evaluation of Adhesively Bonded Repair in Composite Structures." (2017). § 4.5.3 and its figure 4.11, followed by § 4.5.4 and its figure.
Bergan, Andrew Cole. "An automated meshing framework for progressive damage analysis of fabrics using compdam." American Society for Composites 35th technical conference. 2020. Page 13 ¶¶ 1-3.
Hosseinpour Dashatan, Saeid. "INVESTIGATION OF DAMAGE IN GFRP TAPERED COMPOSITE LAMINATES." (2021). § 3.3, including page 29 ¶ 1 and fig. 3.5
Bouvet, Christophe, et al. "Low velocity impact modelling in laminate composite panels with discrete interface elements." International Journal of Solids and Structures 46.14-15 (2009): 2809-2821. Figures 6-7 and accompanying description.
Bouvet, Christophe, et al. "Discrete impact modeling of inter-and intra-laminar failure in composites." Dynamic failure of composite and sandwich structures. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2012. 339-392. §§ 3.1-3.4
Maio, Leandro. Numerical implementation of damage and fracture models for progressive damaging simulation in composite material structures. Diss. UNIVERSITY OF NAPLES “FEDERICO II, 2013. Pages 66-67.
Lin, Shiyao, Nhung Nguyen, and Anthony M. Waas. "Application of continuum decohesive finite element to progressive failure analysis of composite materials." Composite Structures 212 (2019): 365-380. §§ 2.1-2.2.5
See the instant specification, ¶ 44 to clarify: “In certain aspects, the free hex-dominated advancing front meshing algorithm 110a and/or the structured hex meshing algorithm 110b may be provided and/or executed by a suitable commercial software package, such as ABAQUS/CAE, or the like.” – i.e. such a connecting feature with cohesive elements, as well as using tie constraints, are conventional functional already present in ABAQUS, the exemplary simulation software package contemplated for use.
The claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and a mental process without significantly more.
Regarding the dependent claims
Claim 2-3 are part of the insignificant computer implementation that is WURC in view of the evidence above.
To further clarify, also see Nguyen, Minh Hoang, and Anthony M. Waas. "Modeling delamination migration in composite laminates using an enhanced semi-discrete damage model (eSD2M)." International Journal of Solids and Structures 236 (2022): 111323. § 2.2, followed by § 3 ¶ 1: “While cohesive zone network models (Joosten et al., 2018; Bouvet et al., 2009; Liu and Phoenix, 2020) try to have perfectly matching nodes between the plies and interlayer, the eSD2M approach relaxes that requirement – claim 3 is merely what is conventional, i.e. enforcing that at least some of the nodes are matching nodes (to clarify on the BRI, note the preamble is “comprising”, i.e. it encompasses what was conventional by its open-ended breadth).
Claim 4 is also part of the same insignificant computer implementation that is WURC in view of the above
Claim 5: a simple mental process in geometry, in view of ¶¶ 86 and 88, with the insignificant computer implementation that is WURC in view of the above. Note fig. 3A and accompanying description in ¶ 86 for what these are partitions are, i.e. i.e. its merely partition space into smaller spaces in 2D in geometry, readily a mental process.
Claim 6: again, insignificant computer implementation that is conventional in view of the above.
Claim 7: Math in textual form – see ¶ 108
The remaining dependent claims are rejected under similar rationales as their parallel claims discussed above
The claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and a mental process without significantly more.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11,13-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu, Jiakun. A discrete modeling approach for progressive failure analysis of composite laminates and filament-wound pressure vessels. Cornell University. PhD Dissertation, 2020.
Claim 5, and parallel claims 12 and 19, are not rejected under § 102/103. Closest reference of record is Liu, as relied upon, page 90 last paragraph, last two paragraphs, but this does not fairly teach the particularity of what is recited in these claims, read with a BRI consistent with at least ¶¶ 49, 88, and 90 of the instant disclosure. Nor does any of the other pertinent art of record taken in combination with Liu fairly teach the particular subject matter in these dependent claims.
Regarding Claim 1
Liu teaches:
A computer implemented method for semi-discrete modeling of delamination migration in composite laminate materials, the method comprising: (Liu, abstract: “In order to overcome the limitations of existing methods, we present an auto-generated geometry-based discrete finite element model (AGDM). This new approach is realized by in-house developed preprocessing commands, and can be adopted for various applications. Then we demonstrate a FE analysis, in which the predicted damage pattern and tensile strengths of the tested specimens are in excellent agreement with X-ray and data from experimental observations…” -then, see chapter 5 as cited to below, include seeing § 5.1 incl.: “Essentially these ’interface parts’ anticipate the occurrences and various locations of one of the three crack types (failure modes) and their possible interactions… But these embedded cracklets may trigger upon certain criteria, and become segments of cracks and material discontinuities. Specifically, there are (i) ’yarn cracklets’ for yarn tensile fractures, (ii) ’matrix cracklets’ anticipating interface damages between adjacent yarns in a ply and subsequent intra-ply matrix cracks propagated through linking of failed matrix cracklets, (iii) ’delamination cracklets’ anticipating the triggering of inter-ply delaminations and their growth from such cracklet linking. Load transfer from failure of a cracklet may trigger failure of a neighboring cracklet of the same or a different type, thus generating laminate damage in the form of a growing networks of cracks. Matching mesh are ensured at any potential crack intersections in 3D space”
receiving, from a user, a specimen geometry and a specimen stacking sequence; creating, by one or more processors, a finite-element (FE) mesh by: generating, using a mesh generation tool, a plurality of plies each shaped according to the specimen geometry, wherein each ply includes (i) a plurality of fibrous strips along a fiber direction and (ii) a bulk element between each of the plurality of fibrous strips, and connecting, using the mesh generation tool, the plurality of plies together based on the stacking sequence by placing a plurality of cohesive elements between each adjacent pair of plies, wherein the FE mesh defines a composite laminate material;
Liu, abstract, then see § 5.1 ¶¶ 2-4: “The core idea of AGDM is to represent the volume of a laminated composite object of interest in terms of discrete ’parts’, which can be either ’conventional parts’ representing resin-impregnated yarns or yarn [fibrous strips] segments (viewed primarily as 3D continuum structures), or, small-thickness ’interface parts’ (almost 2D planar structures). These ’interface parts’ can represent the interface (commonly voids or resin rich zones) between two adjacent yarns [example of bulk elements, clarified on below] or between two plies [example of the cohesive elements between piles, clarified on below], but they can also represent the location of a weak spot along a yarn (in reality a local collection of weaker fibers) where such a yarn can break in half. Essentially these ’interface parts’ anticipate the occurrences and various locations of such parts will typically be partitioned or subdivided into smaller segments, not only to cover all potential failure sites (within a reasonable length-scale of local load-transfer between the various parts), but also taking care to ensure matching
meshes at all potential crack bifurcation one of the three crack types (failure modes) and their possible interactions…. These operations are realized by in-house developed preprocessing codes (Python scripting commands) within the commercial FEM software Abaqus [12]…. Specifically, there are (i) ’yarn cracklets’ for yarn tensile fractures, (ii) ’matrix cracklets’ [bulk elements] anticipating interface damages between adjacent yarns in a ply and subsequent intra-ply matrix cracks propagated through linking of failed matrix cracklets, (iii) ’delamination cracklets’ [cohesive elements] anticipating the triggering of inter-ply delaminations [between the piles] and their growth from such cracklet linking.”
As to the receiving step and the generating in each ply with the fibrous strips, see § 5.2, incl: “The key input parameters describing the geometry and layup angles of the laminate plies, taken to be a rectangular prism, are listed in Table 5.1 [see the table, this includes geometry and stacking sequence [note the “i” variable]]. Upon establishing the user-input parameter values, the code begins by discretizing each ply (rectangular in the current implementation) consists of discrete yarns and yarn-to-yarn interfaces (to anticipate matrix cracks between yarns). The yarns in a ply will have the same local orientation as the layup angle of that specific ply…” – then, see fig. 5.1 for the “Initial ply-level discretization of the ith ply containing continuum yarns in blue and yarn interfaces in yellow (locations where matrix cracks can potentially initiate and develop).” - Then, see the remaining parts of § 5.1, incl.: “For the ith ply, the required number and locations of discrete yarns and potential yarn interfaces are computed based on the layup angle, i, the matrix crack spacing of that ply, di, (approximately the fiber/epoxy yarn width) and the thickness of the yarn interfaces, tm…”
In particular, see fig. 5.1, note the “tm” and “di” variables which visually indicate the width/thickness of the “Yarn” and the “Yarn interface” [matrix between the yarns], see fig. 5.3 to further clarify, fig. 5.5 for the tie constraints, fig. 5.6 for the “Yarn cracklet” and “Matrix Cracklet” along with “Yarn segment” in the “mesh” (e.g. page 86: “Fig. 5.6c is a mesh view of the ply, where several yarn segments are visually suppressed to show the meshing of matrix cracklets and yarn cracklets,”, as clarified on below:
To clarify on the bulk element, these, as stated above, are the matrix cracklets – see § 5.4: “As emphasized in Section 4.5, it is critical to have matching meshes at potential crack bifurcations and intersections to capture accurate displacement jumps across cracks and load transfer between them. Therefore, each yarn interface should be segmented according to all potential crack bifurcations that are physically reasonable, such that whenever a yarn failure (fiber crack) occurs and generates or interacts with a matrix crack, matching nodes at such locations are guaranteed…As shown in Fig. 5.3, each interface between two yarns is partitioned (into matrix cracklets) to ensure matching nodes at all potential crack bifurcations. Again, master and slave surfaces must be defined explicitly in the model through use of a surface-based tie constraint formulations, as just explained in Section 5.3 [see page 81-82, paragraph split between the two, and ¶ 2 on p. 82 to clarify]… - see fig. 5.3 for the “Matrix cracklets” to clarify, wherein this visually depicts they are between the yarns/fibrous strips, as well as the remaining parts of § 5.4, e.g.: “Due to the tie formulation used, the nodes away from the crack tip, being slave nodes, will remain close to each other and follow the DOF of their corresponding master surface or edge, and thus, behave as one node. This way, the material integrity in numerical model will not be affected given the typical small values of the cracklet thicknesses, tm and tf…Instead, the nodes only a short distance away from the crack tip can be constrained to the adjacent edges using surface-based tie formulations. As demonstrated in Fig. 5.5, an accurate displacement jump can be captured explicitly by…In contrast, the presented method adopted in AGDM will create individual, precisely segmented domains/parts to ensure the matching of nodes at all potential crack bifurcations before mesh generation, which provides more flexibility on mesh techniques…As an example, screen-shots of the assembled parts (yarn segments, yarn cracklets and matrix cracklets) and finite element mesh for a single ply, as generated by the preprocessing code, are shown in Fig. 5.6, and where the ply angle is arbitrarily chosen as 1 = 21 .” – see fig. 5.6
As to the cohesive elements between the piles/plys, see § 5.5: “Partition of an interface between two plies into delamination cracklets that accommodate previously-positioned, yarn and matrix cracklets” (title), wherein the section describes: “Once yarn cracklets and matrix cracklets have been generated for all N plies, an assembly of delamination cracklets is generated reflecting all possible interplay cracks that may occur. For a laminate with N plies, there are N -1 ply interfaces to be partitioned into delamination cracklets, however, there will be differences in partitioning such interfaces, depending on the discretization and pattern of previous cracklet generation in the two adjoining plies… [see ¶¶ 2-3 to clarify]… As an example, Fig. 5.7a shows the first-step partitioning of a inter-ply part between two adjacent plies to form matching nodes with potential matrix cracks, at 0 and 30, respectively, and where the intra-ply yarn-to-yarn interface thickness (matrix cracklet thickness) has been exaggerated (tm = 0:1mm) for easier visualization of the partitioning pattern…[see descriptions of 5.7b-d and the figure to clarify]…” – to clarify on these being cohesive elements, see pages 103-104, paragraph between the pages: “Indeed, built-in cohesive elements (COH3D8, COH3D6) in Abaqus, by default, will have a nominal thickness of one, as is the case for matrix and delamination cracklet elements to occur in the next subsection” -see remaining parts of §§ 6.3.1-6.3.2 to further clarify, incl. in § 6.3.2: “Both matrix cracklets and delamination cracklets are modeled with either eight-node or six-node cohesive elements (COH3D8 and COH3D6), and incorporate cohesive zone models have uncoupled traction-separation response:”
and determining, by the one or more processors, a predicted mechanical response of the composite laminate material by: generating a constitutive model corresponding to the composite laminate material based on the FE mesh, and inputting a strain value to the constitutive model to generate the predicted mechanical response. (Liu, as cited above, then see § 7.4, incl.: “In the first two examples (Case A and B), all layers are unidirectional (0 ) and
are loaded to a far field strain of 1:6%, which is quite a high level close to the ultimate tensile strain of T1100G (1:82%).” – e.g. see the figures 7.7-7.8, i.e. the mechanical response in the form of stress was predicted by inputting a strain value, as well as other mechanical properties (page 158 discussing fig. 7.10); to clarify, the FEM is generating the consistutive model and doing predicitions with it, e.g. page 31-33: “The constitutive laws of interface elements after degradation are based on a traction-separation response, which is a commonly used cohesive zone modeling (CZM) technique for small- and zero- thickness elements to model crack and interface damages. Simply speaking, they are acting like ’springs’ whose tractions are determined by the relative displacement between its nodes and interfacial stiffness. The stress-strain curve for the tow interface in the normal direction (Mode-I fracture) is similar to that shown in Fig. 3.2, though the strains are replaced with relative displacements…Note that the frictions should exist and remain in the interface after complete damage, but since the frictions are computed from the relative displacements of the interface CEs between tows, an ’ultimate’ strain is added into the constitutive models, but " is relatively much larger than the other " values….Detailed values and parameters in the constitutive laws above are skipped here considering the main focus of this chapter, and can be found in a journal article by us [28]. In a later chapter involving numerical studies of composite laminates, detailed expressions of constitutive laws for CZM-based CEs will be presented.” And page 95: “Beyond the generation and assembly of the laminate model, the preprocessing code also integrates some essential steps required for a complete numerical analysis (though they are independent of AGDM and can be flexible), for example, selection or input of material properties and constitutive laws, specific mesh size and technique, desired loading and boundary conditions, and analysis job submissions.” – see § 6.3 and its subsections to clarify on the constitutive model and what constitutive laws were used, i.e. on page 121: “In this study, non-linear material response is not included into the corresponding constitutive laws of matrix and delamination cracklets, therefore the predicted response of such laminates (Case 2 and 3) does not show any apparent sign of non-linear/yielding behavior.”, and § 7.2.2 which clarifies on the governing equations, e.g. “This way, the constitutive response of interfaces in normal and tangential modes can be defined as shown in Fig. 7.5” on page 137
Regarding Claim 2
The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein connecting the plurality of plies further comprises:
connecting, using the mesh generation tool, the plurality of plies together based on the stacking sequence by placing the plurality of cohesive elements between each adjacent pair of plies based on a set of tie constraints.
Liu, §§ 5.3-5.4 as cited above teaches using a “tie constraint formulation” including as per § 5.4 for the inter-ply cohesive elements
Then see § 5.7, title: “Assembly of laminate from all yarn segments and cracklets (yarn, matrix, delamination) and assignment of surface based tie constraints” and ¶¶ 2-3 and § 5.7, e.g. § 6.2: “For reference, with the above inputs and continuum yarn mesh size of 1mmfor all plies of [30=90=–30]s, the resulting finite element model generated by AGDM contains 1325 instances, 1886 surface-based tie constraints, and 67414 elements.”
Regarding Claim 3
The computer implemented method of claim 2, wherein the set of tie constraints includes enforcing that nodes of the plurality of cohesive elements are located on boundaries of predicted intra-ply matrix cracks.
Liu, as cited above including § 5.4: “…Similar to the yarn interfaces, each ply interface also must be partitioned into delamination cracklets that ensure matching nodes at all potential crack bifurcations [including matrix cracks], which is necessary to allow for formation of interconnected networks of cracks meandering through multiple plies… The procedural steps are follows: In the first step, a complete rectangle of dimensions W L, representing an ply interface, is partitioned to form matching nodes at all potential bifurcation sites involving the delamination itself and matrix cracklets from two adjacent plies...As emphasized in Section 4.5, it is critical to have matching meshes at potential crack bifurcations and intersections to capture accurate displacement jumps across cracks and load transfer between them. Therefore, each yarn interface should be segmented according to all potential crack bifurcations that are physically reasonable, such that whenever a yarn failure (fiber crack) occurs and generates or interacts with a matrix crack, matching nodes at such locations are guaranteed…As shown in Fig. 5.3, each interface between two yarns is partitioned (into matrix cracklets) to ensure matching nodes at all potential crack bifurcations. Again, master and slave surfaces must be defined explicitly in the model through use of a surface-based tie constraint formulations, as just explained in Section 5.3 [see page 81-82, paragraph split between the two, and ¶ 2 on p. 82 to clarify]… - see fig. 5.3 for the “Matrix cracklets” to clarify, wherein this visually depicts they are between the yarns/fibrous strips, as well as the remaining parts of § 5.4, e.g.: “Due to the tie formulation used, the nodes away from the crack tip, being slave nodes, will remain close to each other and follow the DOF of their corresponding master surface or edge, and thus, behave as one node. This way, the material integrity in numerical model will not be affected given the typical small values of the cracklet thicknesses, tm and tf…Instead, the nodes only a short distance away from the crack tip can be constrained to the adjacent edges using surface-based tie formulations. As demonstrated in Fig. 5.5, an accurate displacement jump can be captured explicitly by…In contrast, the presented method adopted in AGDM will create individual, precisely segmented domains/parts to ensure the matching of nodes at all potential crack bifurcations before mesh generation, which provides more flexibility on mesh techniques…As an example, screen-shots of the assembled parts (yarn segments, yarn cracklets and matrix cracklets) and finite element mesh for a single ply, as generated by the preprocessing code, are shown in Fig. 5.6, and where the ply angle is arbitrarily chosen as 1 = 21 .” – see fig. 5.6 – see other citations for claim 2 above for further clarification
Also, see fig. 5.7 to clarify as well: “(a) First-step partition of a ply interface part to form matching nodes with intra-ply matrix cracks;”
Regarding Claim 4
The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein connecting the plurality of plies further comprises:
partitioning an interlayer between each adjacent pair of plies by defining a plurality of interlayer partition features that surround each fibrous strip included in each respective adjacent pair of plies.
Liu, as cited above, e.g. page 88: “…For a laminate with N plies, there are N - 1 ply
interfaces to be partitioned into delamination cracklets, however, there will be differences in partitioning such interfaces, depending on the discretization and pattern of previous cracklet generation in the two adjoining plies…Similar to the yarn interfaces, each ply interface also must be partitioned into delamination cracklets that ensure matching nodes at all potential crack bifurcations, which is necessary to allow for formation of interconnected networks of cracks meandering through multiple plies. Delaminations can potentially interact with yarn fractures and matrix cracks from the two adjoining plies, therefore, the relative locations of all previously-inserted cracklets in adjacent plies must be taken into account in determining the locations and local geometries of all delamination cracklets…Then in partitioning each inter-ply interface part into delamination cracklets, the coordinates of all partitioning ’lines’, which define the geometry of each delamination cracklet, must have end points and corners that are compatible with those previously-inserted intra-ply cracklets, in terms of allowing for all possible crack bifurcations to form a complex crack network. This requires linking of adjoining cracklets of any of the three cracklet types (irrespective of the order of their failure during loading). These locations and partitioning patterns are established based on geometric principles, and once determined, all surfaces of each segment will be designated as either master surfaces or slave surfaces, in order to assign suitable tie constraints.”
Regarding Claim 6
Lu teaches:
The computer implemented method of claim 4, further comprising:
placing a cohesive element at least at an intersection of each respective pair of interlayer partition features. (Lu, as cited above for claim 4, in particular pages 88-89)
Regarding Claim 7
Lu teaches:
The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the constitutive model includes mixed-mode conditions to model delamination failure in the composite laminate material. (Lu, as cited above, teaches that this includes simulating “delamination”, and see table 6.2 on p. 108: “Material parameter for mixed-mode B-K law” – see § 6.3.2 to clarify, e.g. §6.4: “The experimental observations from the failure process in the tested [30=90=–30]s specimen [102] being for comparison, reveal that initial damage growth consists of small edge delaminations bounded by short matrix cracks, and soon followed by abrupt catastrophic failure involving massive delamination that spreads from the initial edge delaminations. Several yarn breaks are also observed at final failure stage” – and § 6.4.1: “For the damage profile and progressive failure evolution, the numerical prediction by AGDMis in close agreement with the experimental observations. Fig. 6.2 shows a comparison between the X-radiograph and numerical prediction of the [30=90=–30]s specimen just before final abrupt failure… In the numerical analysis, several isolated small edge delaminations are observed midway along the specimen, which occur just prior to the abrupt failure… Several matrix cracks associated with edge delaminations are also observed. Almost instantly, upon having just reached the peak load, massive delamination occurred in all plies and formed a wide delamination band that initiated from previously small edge delaminations. Intensive matrix cracks occurred inside and around the border of the massive delamination region. Around the edge of massive delamination region, several split yarns are formed by bounded matrix cracks and local delaminations, and have noticeably protruded out of the laminate edge”
Regarding Claim 8
Rejected under a similar rationale as claim 1 above. Liu also teaches:
a user interface; (Liu, page 74: “These operations are realized by in-house developed preprocessing codes (Python scripting commands) within the commercial FEM software Abaqus [12].” – e.g. see fig. 7.7 which POSITA would have known was the GUI of Abaqus, also see the above citations in claim 1 for the receiving of user input by the technique of Liu, which POSITA would have inferred was through a UI)
Regarding Claims 9-11, 13-18, 20
Rejected under a similar rationale as their representative claims above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nguyen et al., US 20230177240 A1, abstract and claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A. HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-0537. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10AM to 7 PM EST.
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.
/David A Hopkins/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188