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
1. Claims 1-16 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 1 and 15, they recite the limitation “tk” and “tk+i” which is unclear what the sub-elements “k” and “i” refer.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
3. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per Claim 1 and 15, they recite the limitation “determining based on the measurement data of the physical object for the time step tk+i, (k+i)-th modification data…” which is unclear since “the measurement data of the physical object for the time step tk+i,” was not determined in a prior step therefore to determining has no nexus. In particular, Claim1 and 15 recites “a physical object with measurement data of the physical object obtained in an experiment” in the preamble, but it is unclear how the determining is “based on the measurement data of the physical object for the time step tk+i”. It lacks essential feature of measurement of the physical object for the time step tk+I in an experiment.
As per Claim 3, it recites the limitation “determining a finite element representation of the experiment for the time step tk+i based on the measurement data of the physical object and the virtual measurement data for the time step tk+i;” which is unclear which features of the "experiment" are represented. In particular, it is unclear whether the “physical object” and the “virtual object” are part of “finite element representation” or not. Further it is unclear if “a finite element representation of the experiment” is part of simulation.
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.
4. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1) The claim 1-14 and 16 recite steps or acts including outputting information about the interaction; thus, the claims are to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. The claim 15 is directed to an apparatus comprising an input interface and a processing circuit which is a product therefore is a statutory category of invention.
(Step 2A – Prong One) For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. Abstract ideas are bolded.
The claim 1 and 15 recite:
determining based on the measurement data of the physical object for the time step tk+i, (k+i)-th modification data for nodes of the finite element representation of the virtual object in the time step tk+i-1 (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion as described), wherein the (k+i)-th modification data indicate modifications to data assigned to the nodes of the finite element representation of the virtual object from the time step tk+i-1 to the time step tk+i (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use);
determining the finite element representation of the physical object for the time step tk+i based on the finite element representation of the physical object for the time step tk+i-1 (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion as described), the finite element representation of the virtual object for the time step tk+i-1 and the (k+i)-th modification data (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use); and
outputting information about the interaction of the finite element representation of the virtual object with the finite element representation of the physical object (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting).
Therefore, the limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, an abstract idea.
(Step 2A – Prong Two: integration into practical application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements of “computer implemented” (Claim 1-14), “an apparatus … comprising: an input interface … and a processing circuit …” (Claim 15), and “A non-transitory machine-readable medium having stored thereon a program having a program code for performing the method according to claim 1, when the program is executed on a processor or a programmable hardware” (Claim 16) which is recited at high level generality and recited so generally that they represent more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, the additional elements of “computer”/”processor” does not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) is not applied with any particular machine (except for generic computer components), (3) does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (4) is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation of “wherein a finite element representation of a virtual object for interacting with a finite element representation of the physical object in order to restrain an evolution of the finite element representation of the physical object in the simulation is provided for a time step tk of the simulation” (Claim 1) and “to perform the following for one or more subsequent time steps tk+i of the simulation:”(Claim 1 and 15) is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Further claim 1 and 15 recite the limitation which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering/outputting (see MPEP 2106.05(g)): (Claim 15) “receive the measurement data of the physical object;” (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use) and (Claim 1 and 15) “outputting information about the interaction of the finite element representation of the virtual object with the finite element representation of the physical object” (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
(Step 2B - inventive concept) The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “computer implemented” (Claim 1-14), “an apparatus … comprising: an input interface … and a processing circuit …” (Claim 15), and “A non-transitory machine-readable medium having stored thereon a program having a program code for performing the method according to claim 1, when the program is executed on a processor or a programmable hardware” (Claim 16) which is recited at high level generality and recited so generally that they represent more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The additional limitation of “wherein a finite element representation of a virtual object for interacting with a finite element representation of the physical object in order to restrain an evolution of the finite element representation of the physical object in the simulation is provided for a time step tk of the simulation” (Claim 1) and “to perform the following for one or more subsequent time steps tk+i of the simulation:”(Claim 1 and 15) is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Further claim 1 and 15 recite the limitation which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) which is the element that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, such as storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05 (d) II 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) and receiving or transmitting data (MPEP 2106.05 (d) II i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added))): (Claim 15) “receive the measurement data of the physical object;” (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use) and (Claim 1 and 15) “outputting information about the interaction of the finite element representation of the virtual object with the finite element representation of the physical object” (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting).
Further dependent claims 2-14 recite:
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining the (k+i)-th modification data comprises:
determining an estimate for the finite element representation of the physical object for the time step t.sub.k+i; (mathematical concepts and a mental process)
allocating the measurement data of the physical object for the time step t.sub.k+i to nodes of the estimate; (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering)
determining deviations between the measurement data of the physical object for the time step t.sub.k+i and data assigned to the allocated nodes of the estimate; (mathematical concepts and a mental process)
determining distances between the nodes of the estimate; (mathematical concepts and a mental process)
determining virtual measurement data for the physical object for the time step t.sub.k+i by interpolating the deviations using the estimate and the distances between the nodes of the estimate; (mathematical concepts and a mental process) and
determining the (k+i)-th modification data based on the measurement data of the physical object and the virtual measurement data for the time step t.sub.k+i. (mathematical concepts and a mental process)
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein determining the (k+i)-th modification data based on the measurement data of the physical object and the virtual measurement data for the time step t.sub.k+i comprises:
determining a finite element representation of the experiment for the time step t.sub.k+i based on the measurement data of the physical object and the virtual measurement data for the time step t.sub.k+i; (mathematical concepts and a mental process)
determining normal vectors for the nodes of the finite element representation of the experiment for the time step t.sub.k+i; (mathematical concepts and a mental process) and
determining the (k+i)-th modification data based on the finite element representation of the experiment and the normal vectors for the nodes of the finite element representation of the experiment for the time step t.sub.k+i. (mathematical concepts and a mental process)
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein determining the (k+i)-th modification data based on the finite element representation of the experiment and the normal vectors for the nodes of the finite element representation of the experiment for the time step t.sub.k+i comprises:
determining uncertainties of the virtual measurement data based on measurement uncertainties of the measurement data of the physical object for the time step t.sub.k+i; (mathematical concepts and a mental process)
determining an auxiliary finite element representation of the virtual object for the time step t.sub.k+i based on the finite element representation of the experiment and the normal vectors for the nodes of the finite element representation of the experiment for the time step t.sub.k+i using a predetermined metric for converting the uncertainties of the virtual measurement data and the measurement uncertainties of the measurement data of the physical object for the time step t.sub.k+i to scalar values of the same type as the measurement data of the physical object; (mathematical concepts and a mental process) and
determining the (k+i)-th modification data based on a comparison of the auxiliary finite element representation of the virtual object for the time step t.sub.k+i and the finite element representation of the virtual object for the time step t.sub.k+i−1. (mathematical concepts and a mental process)
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the virtual object is at least one surface enveloping at least part of the finite element representation of the physical object in the simulation, and wherein the finite element representation of the physical object is restricted in the simulation to not penetrate the at least one surface. (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use)
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein determining the (k+i)-th modification data based on the measurement data of the physical object and the virtual measurement data for the time step t.sub.k+i comprises:
determining a finite element representation of the experiment for the time step t.sub.k+i based on the measurement data of the physical object and the virtual measurement data for the time step t.sub.k+i; (mathematical concepts and a mental process) and
determining the (k+i)-th modification data based on a comparison of the finite element representation of the experiment for the time step t.sub.k+i and the finite element representation of the virtual object for the time step t.sub.k+i−1. (mathematical concepts and a mental process)
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the virtual object is a virtual replica of the experiment for the time step t.sub.k, and wherein nodes of the finite element representation of the virtual object are coupled to corresponding nodes of the finite element representation of the physical object via coupling elements. (insignificant extra-solution activity – field of use)
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein the coupling elements exhibit coupling coefficients which vary based on the difference between the respective data assigned to coupled nodes, and wherein the method further comprises:
determining uncertainties of the virtual measurement data based on measurement uncertainties of the measurement data of the physical object for the time step t.sub.k+i; (mathematical concepts and a mental process) and
determining the coupling coefficients based on the measurement uncertainties of the measurement data and the uncertainties of the virtual measurement data underlying the data assigned to the nodes of the finite element representation of the virtual object. (mathematical concepts and a mental process)
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein determining the estimate for the finite element representation of the physical object for the time step t.sub.k+i comprises:
combining the finite element representation of the physical object for the time step t.sub.k+i−1 (k+i)-th auxiliary modification data, (mathematical concepts and a mental process) wherein the (k+i)-th auxiliary modification data indicates modifications of data assigned to the nodes of the finite element representation of the physical object from the time step t.sub.k+i−1 to the time step t.sub.k+i in the simulation when the finite element representation of the virtual object is omitted. (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use)
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein determining the estimate for the finite element representation of the physical object for the time step t.sub.k+i comprises:
combining the finite element representation of the experiment for the time step t.sub.k+i−1 with (k+i)-th auxiliary modification data, (mathematical concepts and a mental process) wherein the (k+i)-th auxiliary modification data indicate modifications of data assigned to the nodes of the finite element representation of the physical object from the time step t.sub.k+1 to the time step t.sub.k+i in the simulation when the finite element representation of the virtual object is omitted. (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use)
11. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the measurement data of the physical object is position data indicating measured positions of the physical object, and wherein the data assigned to the nodes of the finite element representation of the virtual object is position data. (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use)
12. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the measurement data of the physical object are generated by at least two different measurement systems.
13. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein outputting information about the interaction comprises:
coloring one of the finite element representation of the virtual object and the finite element representation of the physical object according to a color code indicating two or more levels of interaction of the finite element representation of the virtual object with the finite element representation of the physical object; (a mental process) and/or
determining a scalar parameter indicating a type and/or the level of interaction of the finite element representation of the virtual object with the finite element representation of the physical object. (mathematical concepts and a mental process)
14. The computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein the simulation of the physical object is one of a plurality of simulations of the physical object, and wherein the method further comprises:
comparing the information about the interaction of the finite element representation of the virtual object with the finite element representation of the physical object determined for the simulation with information about the interaction of the finite element representation of the virtual object with the finite element representation of the physical object determined for other simulations of the plurality of simulations in order to obtain a comparison result; a mental process) and
determining the simulation among the plurality of simulations that matches the measurement data of the physical object best based on the comparison result. (a mental process)
Considering the claim both individually and in combination, there is no element or combination of elements recited contains any “inventive concept” or adds “significantly more” to transform the abstract concept into a patent-eligible application.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5. Claims 1 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over González et al. (“Model order reduction for real-time data assimilation through Extended Kalman Filters”), in view of Hallquist (LS-DYNA Keyword User’s Manual).
As per Claim 1 and 15-16, González et al. teaches a computer-implemented method/ apparatus/ non-transitory machine-readable medium for comparing a simulation of a physical object with measurement data of the physical object obtained in an experiment (pg. 679, Abstract “Data assimilation is the process by which experimental measurements are incorporated into the modeling process of a given system. …. real-time monitoring and control of structures or mixed/augmented reality”), …, the method comprising for one or more subsequent time steps tk+i of the simulation (pg. 682, Section 2, Corrector Phase):
(Claim 15) an input interface configured to receive the measurement data of the physical object; and a processing circuit configured to perform the following for one or more subsequent time steps tk+i of the simulation (Introduction “The ability to handle big data, along with the possibility of extracting relevant knowledge from raw data, once hidden correlations have been elucidated, has opened an unprecedented interest in the field of Dynamic Data Driven Application Systems [1]. Ubiquitous sensing and the generalization of the Internet of Things (IoT) in the framework of industry 4.0, is already providing us with large amounts of experimental data,” Inherency considered):
(Claim 16) when the program is executed on a processor or a programmable hardware (Introduction “The ability to handle big data, along with the possibility of extracting relevant knowledge from raw data, once hidden correlations have been elucidated, has opened an unprecedented interest in the field of Dynamic Data Driven Application Systems [1]. Ubiquitous sensing and the generalization of the Internet of Things (IoT) in the framework of industry 4.0, is already providing us with large amounts of experimental data,” Inherency considered)
determining based on the measurement data of the physical object for the time step tk+i, (k+i)-th modification data for nodes of the finite element representation … in the time step tk+i-1, wherein the (k+i)-th modification data indicate modifications to data assigned to the nodes of the finite element representation …. from the time step tk+i-1 to the time step tk+i (section 2 on Pg 681-682, Corrector Phase: “Extended Kalman filters” correction phase computes at each time step a correction term “
PNG
media_image1.png
31
127
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”);
determining the finite element representation of the physical object for the time step tk+i based on the finite element representation of the physical object for the time step tk+i-1, … (section 2-3 on Pg 681-682, equation (1): at each subsequent time step the updated state depends on the model prediction from the previous corrected state through the transfer function: ).
González et al. fails to teach explicitly wherein a finite element representation of a virtual object for interacting with a finite element representation of the physical object in order to restrain an evolution of the finite element representation of the physical object in the simulation is provided for a time step tk of the simulation,
the finite element representation of the virtual object for the time step tk+i-1 and the (k+i)-th modification data;
determining the finite element representation of the physical object for the time step...based on the finite element representation of the virtual object for the time step tk+i-1 and the (k+i)-th modification data.
outputting information about the interaction of the finite element representation of the virtual object with the finite element representation of the physical object.
Hallquist teaches wherein a finite element representation of a virtual object for interacting with a finite element representation of the physical object in order to restrain an evolution of the finite element representation of the physical object in the simulation is provided for a time step tk of the simulation (pg. 36-1, “*RIGIDWALL”, “The RIGIDWALL option provides a simple way of treating contact between a rigid surface and nodal points of a deformable body, called slave nodes.”; pg. 12-52, *CONTROL_CONTACT, RWPNAL “Scale factor for rigid wall penalties, which treat nodal points interacting with rigid walls, RWPNAL. The penalties are set so that an absolute value of unity should be optimal; however, this penalty value may be very problem dependent. If rigid/deformable materials switching is used, this option should be used if the switched materials are interacting with rigid walls”: “the rigidwall” corresponds to the claimed limitation “finite element representation of a virtual object”);
the finite element representation of the virtual object for the time step tk+i-1 and the (k+i)-th modification data (pg. 36-1, “*RIGIDWALL”, “The RIGIDWALL option provides a simple way of treating contact between a rigid surface and nodal points of a deformable body, called slave nodes.”; pg. 12-52, *CONTROL_CONTACT, RWPNAL “Scale factor for rigid wall penalties, which treat nodal points interacting with rigid walls, RWPNAL. The penalties are set so that an absolute value of unity should be optimal; however, this penalty value may be very problem dependent. If rigid/deformable materials switching is used, this option should be used if the switched materials are interacting with rigid walls”: “the rigidwall” corresponds to the claimed limitation “finite element representation of a virtual object”);
determining the finite element representation of the physical object for the time step... based on the finite element representation of the virtual object for the time step tk+i-1 and the (k+i)-th modification data (pg. 36-1, “*RIGIDWALL”; pg. 36-11, “*RIGIDWALL_GEOMETRIC”, Motion Card; pg. 12-52, “*CONTROL_CONTACT”, “RWPNAL”: the rigidwall contributes penalty forces or constraint corrections to the deformable body at each time step based on the current penetration state, establishing that the deformable body’s evolution at each time step depends on its own prior state (corresponding to the limitation “determining the finite element representation of the physical object”), the rigidwall (corresponding to the limitation “finite element representation of the virtual object”) configuration, and the measurement-derived modification data that updates the rigidwall’s prescribed motion);
outputting information about the interaction of the finite element representation of the virtual object with the finite element representation of the physical object (pg. 36-1& 36-2, “*RIGIDWALL” and “*RIGIDWALL_FORCE_TRANSDUCER”, “output of the transducer is written to the rwforc file.”: outputs rigidwall forces via the *RIGIDWALL_FORCE_TRANSDUCER keyword, which writes force data to the rwforc output file, and that energy dissipated due to rigidwalls is computed as stonewall energy). In particular, The RWPNAL parameter on *CONTROL_CONTACT selects between constraint-based treatment, which resets penetrating node velocity to zero and repositions nodes onto the surface, and penalty-based treatment, which applies restoring forces proportional to penetration distance multiplied by a stiffness factor; thereby, the rigidwall restrains the evolution of the deformable finite element representation of the physical object at each simulation time step by preventing penetration of the rigid surface.
In particular, Hallquist teaches the rigidwall contributes penalty forces or constraint corrections to the deformable body (corresponds to the claimed limitation “the finite element representation of the physical object”) at each time step based on the current penetration state, establishing that the deformable body's evolution at each time step depends on its own prior state, the rigidwall (corresponds to the claimed limitation “finite element representation of a virtual object”) configuration, and the measurement-derived modification data that updates the rigidwall's prescribed motion which constitutes “determining the finite element representation of the physical object… based on three input such as “the finite element representation of the physical object … the finite element representation of the virtual object for the time step tk+i-1 and the (k+i)-th modification data”.
González et al. and Hallquist are analogous art because they are both related to a method for finite element simulation.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teaching of Hallquist into González et al.’s to allow the simulation to be restrained to experimentally observed behavior while preserving the physical model’s constitutive relationships and internal consistency as LS-DYNA rigidwall contact is the standard mechanism for imposing boundary constraints in explicit finite element crash simulation (Hallquist: Pg 5-42; Pg 24-97).
6. Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over González et al. (“Model order reduction for real-time data assimilation through Extended Kalman Filters”), in view of Hallquist (LS-DYNA Keyword User’s Manual), and further in view of Yang et al. ("Investigating Grey-Box Modeling for Predictive Analytics in Smart Manufacturing”).
González et al as modified by Hallquist teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1 and 15-16 above.
As per Claim 2, González et al as modified by Hallquist teaches wherein determining the (k+i)-th modification data comprises:
determining an estimate for the finite element representation of the physical object for the time step tk+i (González et al.: pg. 682, Predictor Phase);
allocating the measurement data of the physical object for the time step tk+i to nodes of the estimate (González et al.: pg. 682, section 2);
determining deviations between the measurement data of the physical object for the time step tk+i and data assigned to the allocated nodes of the estimate (González et al.: pg. 682, Corrector Phase).
González et al as modified by Hallquist fails to teach explicitly
determining distances between the nodes of the estimate;
determining virtual measurement data for the physical object for the time step tk+i by interpolating the deviations using the estimate and the distances between the nodes of the estimate; and
determining the (k+i)-th modification data based on the measurement data of the physical object and the virtual measurement data for the time step tk+i.
Yang et al. teaches determining distances between the nodes of the estimate (pg. 3 Section 2.2, Eqs. 3-4: the Kriging method estimates unknown point values based on spatial correlation between known sample points);
determining virtual measurement data for the physical object for the time step tk+i by interpolating the deviations using the estimate and the distances between the nodes of the estimate (pg. 3 Section 2.2, Eqs. 3-7: a grey-box approach where the residual between a white-box model prediction and experimental data is interpolated using Kriging, a spatial interpolation method that estimates unknown point values based on the positions of known sample points and distance-correlated weight values, thereby generating virtual complementary data by interpolating deviations across the model domain); and
determining the (k+i)-th modification data based on the measurement data of the physical object and the virtual measurement data for the time step tk+i (pg. 5 Section 4, Fig. 4: the final grey-box solution combines the basic solution from the white-box model with the estimated residual from the Kriging model).
González et al., Hallquist, and Yang et al. are analogous art because they are all related to a method for finite element simulation.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teaching of Yang et al. into González et al. as modified by Hallquist’s to allow the simulation to be restrained to experimentally observed behavior while preserving the physical model’s constitutive relationships and internal consistency as LS-DYNA rigidwall contact is the standard mechanism for imposing boundary constraints in explicit finite element crash simulation (Hallquist: Pg 5-42; Pg 24-97). Further the motivation to combine the Yang et al. is to provide a high fidelity simulation or empirical data to build the foundation of the general model (Yang et al. Abstract) for employing Kriging interpolation to complement spatially incomplete measurement data across the FE mesh.
As per Claim 12, González et al as modified by Hallquist fails to teach explicitly wherein the measurement data of the physical object are generated by at least two different measurement systems.
Yang et al. teaches wherein the measurement data of the physical object are generated by at least two different measurement systems (pg. 8 Section 5.2 “metal PBF problems”).
7. Claims 3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over González et al. (“Model order reduction for real-time data assimilation through Extended Kalman Filters”), in view of Hallquist (LS-DYNA Keyword User’s Manual) and Yang et al. ("Investigating Grey-Box Modeling for Predictive Analytics in Smart Manufacturing”), and further in view of Pierré et al. (“Finite Element Stereo Digital Image Correlation: Framework and Mechanical Regularization”).
González et al as modified by Hallquist teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1 and 15-16 above.
González et al as modified by Hallquist and Yang et al. teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 2 and 12 above.
As per Claim 3, González et al as modified by Hallquist and Yang et al. fails to teach explicitly wherein determining the (k+i)-th modification data based on the measurement data of the physical object and the virtual measurement data for the time step tk+i comprises: determining a finite element representation of the experiment for the time step tk+i based on the measurement data of the physical object and the virtual measurement data for the time step tk+i;
determining normal vectors for the nodes of the finite element representation of the experiment for the time step tk+i; and
determining the (k+i)-th modification data based on the finite element representation of the experiment and the normal vectors for the nodes of the finite element representation of the experiment for the time step tk+i.
Pierré et al. teaches determining a finite element representation of the experiment for the time step tk+i based on the measurement data of the physical object and the virtual measurement data for the time step tk+i (Pg 446 “Shape measurement with an FE mesh”, Equation (3));
determining normal vectors for the nodes of the finite element representation of the experiment for the time step tk+i (pg. 446-447 "Shape measurement with an FE mesh," "Regularization", "the surface normal is estimated at each node (average of the neighbouring element normals) in the initial shape of the mesh"); and
determining the (k+i)-th modification data based on the finite element representation of the experiment and the normal vectors for the nodes of the finite element representation of the experiment for the time step tk+i (Pg 446-447 “Shape measurement with an FE mesh”, Equation (3)-(4)). In particular, Pierré teaches an FE-SDIC framework that constructs a finite element representation of the experimentally observed surface by performing shape measurement directly on the FE mesh in the world coordinate system, where the 3D positions of mesh nodes are optimized to match the experimental stereo image data by minimizing grey-level conservation residuals and that the shape correction displacement field is determined along the surface normals based on the discrepancy between the projected FE mesh positions and the stereo image data, where the normal-direction correction at each node constitutes the modification data derived from the comparison of the FE representation with the experimental observations.
González et al. as modified by Hallquist, and Yang et al. and Pierré et al. are analogous art because they are all related to a method for finite element simulation.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teaching of Pierré et al. into González et al. as modified by Hallquist and Yang et al.’s to allow the simulation to be restrained to experimentally observed behavior while preserving the physical model’s constitutive relationships and internal consistency as LS-DYNA rigidwall contact is the standard mechanism for imposing boundary constraints in explicit finite element crash simulation (Hallquist: Pg 5-42; Pg 24-97) and to provide a high fidelity simulation or empirical data to build the foundation of the general model (Yang et al. Abstract) for employing Kriging interpolation to complement spatially incomplete measurement data across the FE mesh. Further to combine the teaching of Pierré et al. is to enable quantitative comparison of experimental and simulated deformation fields for both experimental shape measurement and simulationusing the same finite element mesh (Conclusion).
As per Claim 6, González et al as modified by Hallquist and Yang et al. fails to teach explicitly wherein determining the (k+i)-th modification data based on the measurement data of the physical object and the virtual measurement data for the time step tk+i comprises:
determining a finite element representation of the experiment for the time step tk+i based on the measurement data of the physical object and the virtual measurement data for the time step tk+i; and
determining the (k+i)-th modification data based on a comparison of the finite element representation of the experiment for the time step tk+i and the finite element representation of the virtual object for the time step tk+i-1.
Pierré et al. teaches determining a finite element representation of the experiment for the time step tk+i based on the measurement data of the physical object and the virtual measurement data for the time step tk+i Pg 446 “Shape measurement with an FE mesh”, Equation (3)); and
determining the (k+i)-th modification data based on a comparison of the finite element representation of the experiment for the time step tk+i and the finite element representation of the virtual object for the time step tk+i-1 (pg. 444 “Introduction”; pg. 452-454, "Real test case").
As per Claim 7, González et al as modified by Hallquist and Yang et al. teaches wherein the virtual object is a virtual replica of the experiment for the time step tk, and wherein nodes of the finite element representation of the virtual object are coupled to corresponding nodes of the finite element representation of the physical object via coupling elements (Hallquist: pg. 12-52, “*CONTROL_CONTACT, RWPNAL”; pg. 36-11 “Motion Card”, “*RIGIDWALL_GEOMETRIC_SHAPE_MOTION”: a rigidwall, the penetrated distance along the rigidwall normal is computed and resisted by applying a force proportional to the computed distance multiplied by a stiffness factor based on the material and element dimensions, which functions as coupling elements between the rigidwall and the physical object nodes.).
8. Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over González et al. (“Model order reduction for real-time data assimilation through Extended Kalman Filters”), in view of Hallquist (LS-DYNA Keyword User’s Manual), and further in view of Pierré et al. (“Finite Element Stereo Digital Image Correlation: Framework and Mechanical Regularization”).
González et al as modified by Hallquist teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1 and 15-16 above.
As per Claim 11, González et al. as modified by Hallquist fails to teach explicitly wherein the measurement data of the physical object is position data indicating measured positions of the physical object, and wherein the data assigned to the nodes of the finite element representation of the virtual object is position data.
Pierré et al. teaches wherein the measurement data of the physical object is position data indicating measured positions of the physical object, and wherein the data assigned to the nodes of the finite element representation of the virtual object is position data. (Pg 446-447 “Shape measurement”).
González et al. as modified by Hallquist, and Pierré et al. are analogous art because they are all related to a method for finite element simulation.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teaching of Pierré et al. into González et al. as modified by Hallquist’s to allow the simulation to be restrained to experimentally observed behavior while preserving the physical model’s constitutive relationships and internal consistency as LS-DYNA rigidwall contact is the standard mechanism for imposing boundary constraints in explicit finite element crash simulation (Hallquist: Pg 5-42; Pg 24-97). Further to combine the teaching of Pierré et al. is to enable quantitative comparison of experimental and simulated deformation fields for both experimental shape measurement and simulationusing the same finite element mesh (Conclusion).
As per Claim 13, González et al. as modified by Hallquist fails to teach explicitly wherein outputting information about the interaction comprises: coloring one of the finite element representation of the virtual object and the finite element representation of the physical object according to a color code indicating two or more levels of interaction of the finite element representation of the virtual object with the finite element representation of the physical object; and/or determining a scalar parameter indicating a type and/or the level of interaction of the finite element representation of the virtual object with the finite element representation of the physical object.
Pierré et al. teaches coloring one of the finite element representation of the virtual object and the finite element representation of the physical object according to a color code indicating two or more levels of interaction of the finite element representation of the virtual object with the finite element representation of the physical object (Pg 452-454 Figs 12-14); and/or determining a scalar parameter indicating a type and/or the level of interaction of the finite element representation of the virtual object with the finite element representation of the physical object.
9. Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over González et al. (“Model order reduction for real-time data assimilation through Extended Kalman Filters”), in view of Hallquist (LS-DYNA Keyword User’s Manual) and Pierré et al. (“Finite Element Stereo Digital Image Correlation: Framework and Mechanical Regularization”), and further in view of Corigliano et al. (“Parameter identification in explicit structural dynamics: performance of the extended Kalman filter”).
González et al as modified by Hallquist teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1 and 15-16 above.
González et al as modified by Hallquist and Pierré et al. teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 11 and 13 above.
As per Claim 14, González et al as modified by Hallquist and Pierré et al. fails to teach explicitly wherein the simulation of the physical object is one of a plurality of simulations of the physical object, and wherein the method further comprises: comparing the information about the interaction of the finite element representation of the virtual object with the finite element representation of the physical object determined for the simulation with information about the interaction of the finite element representation of the virtual object with the finite element representation of the physical object determined for other simulations of the plurality of simulations in order to obtain a comparison result; and
determining the simulation among the plurality of simulations that matches the measurement data of the physical object best based on the comparison result.
Corigliano et al. teaches comparing the information about the interaction of the finite element representation of the virtual object with the finite element representation of the physical object determined for the simulation with information about the interaction of the finite element representation of the virtual object with the finite element representation of the physical object determined for other simulations of the plurality of simulations in order to obtain a comparison result (Pg 3813-3812 section 4.1-4.3 Fig.3 & 5-10); and
determining the simulation among the plurality of simulations that matches the measurement data of the physical object best based on the comparison result (Pg 3813-3812 section 4.1-4.3 Fig.3 & 5-10). In particular, Corigliano teaches that the EKF was applied to multiple constitutive models with varying parameter sets and that the filter performance was evaluated across different initialization conditions, noise levels, and time step amplitudes, thereby comparing multiple simulation configurations against pseudo-experimental measurements to assess which parameter set and model best tracks the physical system’s behavior.
González et al. as modified by Hallquist, and Pierré et al., and Corigliano et al. are analogous art because they are all related to a method for finite element simulation.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teaching of Corigliano et al. into González et al. as modified by Hallquist and Pierré et al.’s to allow the simulation to be restrained to experimentally observed behavior while preserving the physical model’s constitutive relationships and internal consistency as LS-DYNA rigidwall contact is the standard mechanism for imposing boundary constraints in explicit finite element crash simulation (Hallquist: Pg 5-42; Pg 24-97) and to enable quantitative comparison of experimental and simulated deformation fields for both experimental shape measurement and simulation using the same finite element mesh (Pierré et al.: Conclusion), and to provide a system with a high level of accuracy (Corigliano et al.: Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 4-5, 8-9, and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
(Claim 4) “determining uncertainties of the virtual measurement data based on measurement uncertainties of the measurement data of the physical object for the time step tk+i;
determining an auxiliary finite element representation of the virtual object for the time step tk+i based on the finite element representation of the experiment and the normal vectors for the nodes of the finite element representation of the experiment for the time step tk+i using a predetermined metric for converting the uncertainties of the virtual measurement data and the measurement uncertainties of the measurement data of the physical object for the time step tk+i to scalar values of the same type as the measurement data of the physical object; and
determining the (k+i)-th modification data based on a comparison of the auxiliary finite element representation of the virtual object for the time step tk+i and the finite element representation of the virtual object for the time step tk+i-1.”
(Claim 8) “determining uncertainties of the virtual measurement data based on measurement uncertainties of the measurement data of the physical object for the time step tk+i;
determining the coupling coefficients based on the measurement uncertainties of the measurement data and the uncertainties of the virtual measurement data underlying the data assigned to the nodes of the finite element representation of the virtual object.”
(Claim 10) “combining the finite element representation of the experiment for the time step tk+i-1 with (k+i)-th auxiliary modification data, wherein the (k+i)-th auxiliary modification data indicate modifications of data assigned to the nodes of the finite element representation of the physical object from the time step tk+i-1 to the time step tk+i in the simulation when the finite element representation of the virtual object is omitted. “
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhu (US 8,180,605 B1) discloses computing contact forces and distances based on the current positions of slave nodes relative to the master surface at each time step and the deformable body state at each solution cycle depends on its prior configuration, the master surface configuration, and the contact forces arising from their interaction and outputting information about the interaction of the finite element representation of the virtual object with the finite element representation of the physical object (col. 7 lines 1–15; col. 10 lines 15–25; col. 11 lines 25–30).
Tessler et al. (“A least-squares variational method for full-field reconstruction of elastic deformations in shear-deformable plates and shells,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., Vol. 194, pp. 327–339, 2005) discloses a variational method for reconstructing full-field finite element deformations from sparse experimental strain measurements, wherein measurement data is allocated to nodes of an FE mesh and deviations between measured and computed values are minimized through a least-squares functional to produce updated nodal data
Astroza et al. (“Performance comparison of Kalman-based filters for nonlinear structural finite element model updating,” J. Sound & Vibration, Vol. 438, pp. 520–542, 2019) discloses a computer-implemented method for comparing a simulation of a physical object with measurement data of the physical object obtained in an experiment, a framework for comparing finite element simulation predictions of a structural system with experimentally measured response data, wherein the FE model response is iteratively compared with physical measurements at sequential time steps including Kalman filter’s prediction step for determining uncertainties of the virtual measurement data based on measurement uncertainties of the measurement data of the physical object.
Catani et al. (“The Mark Coventry Award: Articular Contact Estimation in TKA Using In Vivo Kinematics and Finite Element Analysis,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, Vol. 468(1), pp. 19–28 (2010)) discloses prescribing the position of a separate FE entity from fluoroscopy-measured kinematics (pg. 22, Materials and Methods) including a separate FE virtual object, determining the finite element representation of the physical object for the next time step based on three inputs. In the Abaqus/Explicit simulation, the deformation state of the tibial insert depends on (a) its prior elastoplastic state, (b) the femoral component FE geometry, and (c) the fluoroscopy-derived position data (pg. 26, Discussion) and outputting information about the interaction of the finite element representation of the virtual object with the finite element representation of the physical object (pg. 22–25, Results).
Ferrant et al (“Serial Registration of Intraoperative MR Images of the Brain,” Medical Image Analysis, Vol. 6(4), pp. 337–359 (2002)) teaches determining, based on the measurement data of the physical object for the time step tk+i, (k+i)-th modification data for nodes of the finite element representation of the virtual object in the time step tk+i−1 because determining per-node modification data for an FE mesh based on measurement data, where individual surface node displacements are derived from intraoperative MR images through deformable surface matching and prescribed as Dirichlet boundary conditions on the FE mesh (section 2, pg. 342–343; section 1.5, pg. 341).
Soot T et al. (Processing of numerical simulations and experimental X-ray car crash data for deviation analyses and model quality assessment. InNational Agency for Finite Element Methods and Standards (NAFEMS World Congress) 2019 2019).
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm ET.
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.
EUNHEE KIM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/EUNHEE KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188