DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 17, 2026 is not in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3), which requires: “(i) A concise explanation of the relevance […] of each patent, publication, or other information listed that is not in the English language,” or “(ii) A copy of the translation if a written English-language translation of a non-English-language document, or portion thereof, is within the possession, custody, or control of, or is readily available to any individual designated in § 1.56(c).”
While the IDS submitted on July 17, 2026 has corrected the issues identified in the IDS filed on April 8, 2026, the previous issues identified with the IDS filed May 12, 2025 have not been corrected. Specifically, a copy of Yang Zhen et al. ("Optimization and Prediction Research on Carbon Fiber Composite Integrated Conductive Performance based on PCA-GANN Pattern Recognition", Computers and Applied Chemistry, Vol. 25, No. 12, December 28, 2008.), along with an English-language translation or a concise explanation of the relevance have not been received. The reference which could not be considered as a result has been stricken through.
In addition, foreign references were provided by Applicant on May 12, 2025, but these references were not cited in any of the information disclosure statements. These references have been considered; however, a corrected IDS is required.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed July 17, 2026 has been entered. Claims 16-22 and 24-32 remain pending in the instant application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 17, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed July 17, 2026, regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendment reciting “a manufacturable specification of the composite laminate” limits the abstract ideas recited in the claims to a useful practical application, i.e., a method for obtaining a complete, manufacturable specification of the obtained composite laminate.
Regarding this argument, a manufacturable specification is considered to be merely recording the results of the claimed mathematical concepts and mental processes. The claims to not provide a structure for the manufacturable specification that precludes a design which may be constructed by a human user by drawing and/or writing with pen and paper. Furthermore, the amendment “wherein the material features which achieve the desired performance comprise a manufacturable specification of the composite laminate” is considered to be generally linking the recited abstract ideas to a field of use and/or technological environment. The claims do not expressly recite actually manufacturing a component using the results of the analysis and optimization of a composite laminate model.
Applicant further argues that the claims provide an improvement to the technological field of composite laminate design and manufacturing, and such an improvement provides a practical application in the claims.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the claims integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application by providing an improvement in technology, the Examiner notes that “the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement,” see MPEP § 2106.05(a) referenced by MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). While the improvement can be provided by one or more additional element(s) in combination with the judicial exception(s), the additional elements of Claim 1 merely recite generic computer components as instructions to apply the abstract idea(s) on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or a general field of use and technological environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)-(h). See also MPEP 2106.05(a), II.: "it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology." While applicant argues that the claims provide an improvement to composite laminate design and manufacturing, the claims do not recite actually manufacturing the designed laminate. Thus, the claims as a whole are merely directed to designing a composite laminate; any improvement to the designing of said laminate recited in the claims is merely an improvement to the abstract idea of design itself. Therefore, the claims are not considered to recite a practical application or significantly more, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
An updated rejection under 35 U.S.C 101, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, is provided below.
Applicant's arguments regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Liu does not teach the limitation from Claim 16, “a) receiving a geometrical model of a mechanical part to be manufactured.” Specifically, Applicant argues that the “geometrical model of a mechanical part” refers to a structural component having a defined shape and function. Applicant points to paragraph [0312] of Liu, describing the examples embodied in Liu as being “solids subjected to mechanical loads,” as evidence that the composite structures of Liu are not geometrical models of mechanical parts.
Regarding this argument, the Examiner disagrees. The claims do not recite that the mechanical part is a structural component having a defined shape and function. Furthermore, the claimed geometrical model, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses the models of Liu; the instant claims do not describe a structure for the geometrical model that precludes the use of the models in Liu from being used to represent a general mechanical part. Liu’s “solids subjected to mechanical loads” are interpreted as having a shape (i.e., a solid) and function (i.e., mechanical load).
Applicant further argues that Liu does not teach the prediction, evaluation, and optimization recited in Claim 16. Applicant merely asserts that Liu, Malik, and King fail to teach the recited elements.
Regarding this argument, the Examiner notes that the rejection of Claim 16 is based on a combination of Liu and Malik; one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Malik is relied upon to teach the prediction, evaluation, and optimization recited in Claim 16. Furthermore, Applicant has not specifically pointed out how the language of Claim 16 distinguishes it from the prediction, evaluation, and optimization taught by Malik.
An updated rejection under 35 U.S.C 103, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, is provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 16-22 and 24-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes and/or mathematical concepts without significantly more.
The following is an analysis of independent Claim 16 based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Yes: Claims 16-22 and 24-30 are directed to a machine.
Step 2A Prong I, judicial Exception:
The Examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute mental processes and/or mathematical concepts, given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 16 recites the limitations:
16. A computer-implemented method for obtaining a composite laminate comprising a plurality of plies, each ply of the plurality of plies comprising a matrix phase and a filler phase, the method comprising:
a) receiving a geometrical model of a mechanical part to be manufactured from the composite laminate and load conditions for the mechanical part;
b) acquiring material features of a candidate composite laminate, the material features including a complete specification of micro-level, meso-level and macro-level features of the candidate composite laminate;
c) predicting material properties of the candidate composite laminate based on the material features via a trained machine learning device;
d) evaluating a performance of the mechanical part, when manufactured in accordance with the geometrical model received from the candidate composite laminate and loaded in accordance with the load conditions, based on the predicted material properties;
e) optimizing a performance of the mechanical part by varying the material features of the candidate composite laminate and repeatedly performing steps c) and d) until a desired performance is achieved; and
f) determining the candidate composite laminate with the material features that achieve the desired performance of the mechanical part as the composite laminate from which the mechanical part is to be manufactured; wherein the material features which achieve the desired performance comprise a manufacturable specification of the composite laminate.
The limitations predicting material properties, evaluating a performance, optimizing a performance, and determining the candidate composite laminate are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. A user can perform the mental evaluations of predicting properties, evaluating a performance, optimizing a performance, and determining a candidate composite laminate. A user may use pen and paper to perform the necessary calculations.
Step 2A Prong II, Integration into a Practical Application:
Claim 16 recites the following additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea which only present general fields of use, mere instructions to apply an exception, and/or insignificant extra-solution activity:
A computer-implemented method for obtaining a composite laminate comprising a plurality of plies, each ply of the plurality of plies comprising a matrix phase and a filler phase (general field of use and/or technological environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
receiving a geometrical model of a mechanical part to be manufactured from the composite laminate and load conditions for the mechanical part (insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
acquiring material features of a candidate composite laminate (insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
the material features including a complete specification of micro-level, meso-level and macro-level features of the candidate composite laminate (general field of use and/or technological environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
when manufactured in accordance with the geometrical model received from the candidate composite laminate and loaded in accordance with the load conditions (general field of use and/or technological environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
as the composite laminate from which the mechanical part is to be manufactured (general field of use and/or technological environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
wherein the material features which achieve the desired performance comprise a manufacturable specification of the composite laminate (general field of use and/or technological environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS:
Claim 16 recites the following additional elements:
“Computer-implemented” and “machine learning device” are high level recitations of generic computer components, computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer as in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B, Significantly More:
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations and elements of Claim 16 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements “computer-implemented” and “machine learning device” reciting generic computer components as mere instructions to apply on a computer per MPEP § 2106.05(f) are carried over and do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner also notes that the specification does not define the structures of the additional elements in any way that could be used to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional limitations identified as mere instructions to apply an exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, or general field of use above are carried over and also do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP § 2106.05(f), MPEP § 2106.05(g), and MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The insignificant extra solution activities of receiving a geometrical model [and] load conditions and acquiring material features are considered to be further well understood, routine and conventional, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.”
Considering the claim limitations in combination and the claims as a whole does not change this conclusion, and Claim 16 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim recites The method of claim 16, further comprising: g) at least one of (i) manufacturing at least one of the composite laminate and the mechanical part and (ii) instructing via a computer at least one of manufacturing of the composite laminate and the mechanical part; this limitation is considered to be mere instructions to apply an exception under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(f). The claim limitations should provide further detail regarding how the optimization results affect the manufacturing to provide a practical application.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 17 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 18, the claim recites The method of claim 16, wherein each micro-level feature comprises one of a feature of the filler phase and a feature of the matrix phase of one ply of the plurality of plies; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 18 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim recites The method of claim 17, wherein each micro-level feature comprises one of a feature of the filler phase and a feature of the matrix phase of one ply of the plurality of plies; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 19 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim recites The method of claim 18, wherein each meso-level feature comprises a feature indicative of a relationship between the filler phase and the matrix phase of one ply of the plurality of plies; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 20 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 21, the claim recites The method of claim 18, each macro-level feature further comprises a feature indicative of a relationship between two or more of the plurality of plies; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 21 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 22, the claim recites The method of claim 20, each macro-level feature further comprises a feature indicative of a relationship between two or more of the plurality of plies; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 22 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 24, the claim recites The method of claim 16, wherein the material properties predicted in step c) include a material property matrix descriptive of an anisotropy of the predicted material properties; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 24 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 25, the claim recites The method of claim 16, wherein, during step c), the material properties are predicted solely through use of the trained machine learning device without use of simulation, without use of numerical solving, and without use of direct analytical calculations; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 25 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 26, the claim recites The method of claim 16, further comprising: h) training the machine learning device utilizing material features of a respective training composite laminate as input data and material properties of the respective training composite laminate as output data; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 26 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 27, the claim recites The method of claim 26, wherein the material properties of the respective training composite laminate are determined by performing at least one of (i) a simulation based on the material features of the training composite laminate and (ii) a physical experiment with the respective training composite laminate; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 27 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 28, the claim recites The method of claim 16, wherein, during step d), a performance of the mechanical part is evaluated by performing a simulation based on the geometrical model, the load conditions and the predicted material properties; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 28 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 29, the claim recites The method of claim 16, wherein, during step d), a performance of the mechanical part is evaluated using a second trained machine learning device that has been trained to predict a performance of a mechanical part based on a geometrical model, load conditions and material properties of the mechanical part; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 28 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 30, the claim recites The method of claim 16, wherein, said step a) further includes receiving solid constraints and weak constraints for the geometrical model; this limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(g). The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.”
and wherein step e) further includes varying the geometrical model within the weak constraints; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of varying a geometrical model. A user may use pen and paper to draw various geometrical models.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 30 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 31, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to Claim 16, and the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons. The additional elements “computer program product,” “program code,” and “computer” represent mere instructions to apply the recited judicial exceptions on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f), and the additional elements do not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
Furthermore, the claim is directed to a “computer program product.” Under step 1 of the 35 U.S.C 101 analysis determining statutory category, the claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, see MPEP § 2106.03. The claim is directed to a product lacking a physical or tangible structure in the form of an organizational structure, such as a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”). “Computer program product” could be construed as being transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide or other transmission media (e.g., light pulses passing through a fiber-optic cable), or electrical signals transmitted through a wire. Therefore, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101. Applicant may amend the claim to “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising program code” to ensure that the claim is eligible under step 1.
Regarding Claim 32, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to Claim 16, and the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons. The additional elements “processor” and “memory” represent mere instructions to apply the recited judicial exceptions on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f), and the additional elements do not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical 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.
Claim(s) 16-22, 24-29, 31, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0357555 A1, effectively filed September 16, 2019), hereinafter Liu, in view of Malik et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0170022 A1), hereinafter Malik.
Regarding Claim 16, Liu teaches A computer-implemented method for obtaining a composite laminate (“In one aspect, the invention relates to a method for design optimization and/or performance prediction of a material system.”) (e.g., paragraph [0010]).
comprising a plurality of plies, each ply of the plurality of plies comprising a matrix phase and a filler phase (“FIG. 11 shows an application example: a composite design, according to embodiments of the invention. The composite structure can be designed with different microscale structure (e.g., fiber shape) and mesoscale structure (e.g., fiber orientation in each ply, fiber orientation and fiber shape in each ply, as well as different weave pattern for woven composite).”) (e.g., paragraph [0068]).
the method comprising: a) receiving a geometrical model of a mechanical part to be manufactured from the composite laminate (“The system starts with a representation of the material system at a finite number of scales. Any particular scale is composed of fundamental building blocks, the size of which is defined by a characteristic length. The composition of the building blocks is defined by modeling or experimental observations. These are then encoded in a detailed spatial decomposition of the structure (sometimes called a "mesh"), used to describe the location and properties of each phase within the building blocks.” The representation of the material is interpreted as a geometrical model.) (e.g., paragraph [0313]).
and load conditions for the mechanical part (“In one embodiment, the woven microstructure database is used to perform a woven shear simulation, the loading direction is given in FIG. 167.” The loading direction is interpreted as load conditions.) (e.g., paragraph [0339]).
b) acquiring material features of a candidate composite laminate, the material features including a complete specification of micro-level, meso-level and macro-level features of the candidate composite laminate (“FIG. 7 shows an exemplary three-scale FRP modeling framework. The macro scale model is a woven laminate composite model, built as a Finite Element mesh. Each integration point in the macroscale model is represented by a woven MVE, which can have different tow size, tow spacing, and tow angle (the one shown is 90° tow angle). Each integration point in the mesoscale model is represented by a UD MVE, which can have different fiber orientation, fiber volume fraction, and matrix-fiber interfacial strength.”) (e.g., figure 7; paragraph [0329]).
However, Liu does not appear to specifically teach c) predicting material properties of the candidate composite laminate based on the material features via a trained machine learning device; d) evaluating a performance of the mechanical part, when manufactured in accordance with the geometrical model received from the candidate composite laminate and loaded in accordance with the load conditions, based on the predicted material properties; e) optimizing a performance of the mechanical part by varying the material features of the candidate composite laminate and repeatedly performing steps c) and d) until a desired performance is achieved; and f) determining the candidate composite laminate with the material features that achieve the desired performance of the mechanical part as the composite laminate from which the mechanical part is to be manufactured.
On the other hand, Malik, which relates similarly to evaluating composite materials, does teach c) predicting material properties of the candidate composite laminate based on the material features via a trained machine learning device (“After data relating to the composite material has been input into the artificial neural network, the artificial neural network processes the input data. The method then proceeds to Step 40. In Step 40, a predicted impact resistance may be calculated and output from the artificial neural network relating to the composite material.” The predicted impact resistance is interpreted as predicted material properties.) (e.g., paragraph [0541]).
d) evaluating a performance of the mechanical part, when manufactured in accordance with the geometrical model received from the candidate composite laminate and loaded in accordance with the load conditions, based on the predicted material properties (“A separate verification was carried out with simulations from ABAQUS and the ANN model for the cases presented in Table 34.” The simulations may be replaced by actual experiments using a manufactured part, as Malik further discloses manufacturing the composite. “The composite plates are manufactured using the woven fabric of carbon fiber or glass fiber impregnated with epoxy resin.”) (e.g., paragraphs [0237] and [0471]).
e) optimizing a performance of the mechanical part by varying the material features of the candidate composite laminate and repeatedly performing steps c) and d) until a desired performance is achieved (“The results from the all the analysis as discussed in previous chapters indicate that the improvement in impact resistance is not linearly dependent on the factors considered. Thus, it is necessary to study the cost optimization of both the composite plates and the composite pipes. A differential evolution algorithm was adopted to optimize the amount of absorbed energy by the plate or the pipe and the cost model was used to predict the cost of making that sample [...] For GFRP plates, a series of runs of the optimization algorithm, it was found that the optimal solution is a plate having 36 number of layers using stacking sequence 4 with the thickness of each layer to be about 0.57 mm. At this configuration, the ANN model predicts the absorbed energy by the plate to be 0.004 J.”) (e.g., paragraphs [0489] and [0491]).
and f) determining the candidate composite laminate with the material features that achieve the desired performance of the mechanical part as the composite laminate from which the mechanical part is to be manufactured (“For GFRP plates, a series of runs of the optimization algorithm, it was found that the optimal solution is a plate having 36 number of layers using stacking sequence 4 with the thickness of each layer to be about 0.57 mm. At this configuration, the ANN model predicts the absorbed energy by the plate to be 0.004 J.”) (e.g., paragraph [0491]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Liu with Malik. The claimed invention is considered to be merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Liu teaches a method for modeling a composite material at different scales. However, Liu does not appear to specifically teach using machine learning to predict material properties and optimize a composite laminate based on the predictions. On the other hand, Malik, which relates similarly to evaluating composite laminates, does teach a method for using machine learning to predict material properties and optimize a composite laminate. Furthermore, Liu does disclose using supervised and unsupervised learning to cluster microstructure volume elements of the composite laminate (e.g., Liu; figure 1), and also discloses using a feed forward neural network (FFNN) that can be used to predict stress-strain relationships (e.g., Liu; paragraph [0410]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the machine learning prediction of Malik with the multi-scale modeling of Liu. In combination, the modeling of Liu and the machine learning prediction of Malik merely perform the same functions as they do separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination as predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to combine Liu with Malik in order to optimize the design of a composite laminate.
Regarding Claim 17, Liu in view of Malik teaches The method of claim 16. Liu further teaches the method further comprising: g) at least one of (i) manufacturing at least one of the composite laminate and the mechanical part and (ii) instructing via a computer at least one of manufacturing of the composite laminate and the mechanical part (“The cured UD CFRP lamina plaque is manufactured by Dow Chemical and the cross-section of the UD CFRP under microscope is shown in FIG. 51.”) (e.g., paragraph [0562]).
Regarding Claim 18, Liu in view of Malik teaches The method of claim 16. Liu further teaches wherein each micro-level feature comprises one of a feature of the filler phase and a feature of the matrix phase of one ply of the plurality of plies (“FIG. 11 shows an application example: a composite design. The composite structure can be designed with different microscale structure ( e.g., fiber shape) and mesoscale structure ( e.g., fiber orientation in each ply, fiber orientation and fiber shape in each ply, as well as different weave pattern for woven composite).” The microscale structure is interpreted as comprising a feature of the filler and matrix phases.) (e.g., figure 11, paragraph [0333]).
Regarding Claim 19, Liu in view of Malik teaches The method of claim 17. The remaining limitations of Claim 19 recite substantially similar material to Claim 18, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 20, Liu in view of Malik teaches The method of claim 18. Liu further teaches wherein each meso-level feature comprises a feature indicative of a relationship between the filler phase and the matrix phase of one ply of the plurality of plies (“The composite structure can be designed with different microscale structure ( e.g., fiber shape) and mesoscale structure (e.g., fiber orientation in each ply, fiber orientation and fiber shape in each ply, as well as different weave pattern for woven composite).” The mesoscale structure is interpreted as comprising a feature indicative of a relationship between the filler and matrix phases.) (e.g., figure 11 and paragraph [0333]).
Regarding Claim 21, Liu in view of Malik teaches The method of claim 18. Liu further teaches each macro-level feature further comprises a feature indicative of a relationship between two or more of the plurality of plies (“In addition, multiscale structure-property materials and structures design are illustrated by two examples (composites and alloys) in FIGS. 4 and 7. As shown in FIG. 7, the method can be used for a 3-scale material system, and can be extended to N-scale.” Figure 7 discloses a macroscale model with n layers of shell elements, wherein the number of layers are interpreted as a feature indicative of a relationship between two or more of the plurality of plies.) (e.g., figure 7 and paragraph [0352]).
Regarding Claim 22, Liu in view of Malik teaches The method of claim 20. The remaining limitations of Claim 22 recite substantially similar material to Claim 21, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 24, Liu in view of Malik teaches The method of claim 16. Liu further teaches wherein the material properties predicted in step c) include a material property matrix descriptive of an anisotropy of the predicted material properties (“In this work, we present an elasto-plastic, anisotropic, heterogeneous plasticity model of the mechanical response of crystalline materials, to be solved in the SCA framework described in above.” The SCA framework uses a “strain concentration tensor A(x),” which is interpreted as a matrix descriptive of an anisotropy of predicted material properties.) (e.g., paragraphs [0618] and [0654]).
Regarding Claim 25, Liu in view of Malik teaches The method of claim 16. Malik further teaches wherein, during step c), the material properties are predicted solely through use of the trained machine learning device without use of simulation, without use of numerical solving, and without use of direct analytical calculations (“After data relating to the composite material has been input into the artificial neural network, the artificial neural network processes the input data. The method then proceeds to Step 40. In Step 40, a predicted impact resistance may be calculated and output from the artificial neural network relating to the composite material.” Any additional simulations, numerical solving, and analytical calculations may be omitted by one of ordinary skill in the art if they are not desired.) (e.g., paragraph [0541]).
Regarding Claim 26, Liu in view of Malik teaches The method of claim 16. Malik further teaches the method further comprising: h) training the machine learning device utilizing material features of a respective training composite laminate as input data (“In Step 20, the artificial neural network is trained to more accurately predict an impact resistance of the composite material. Step 20 may include Steps 22, 24, 26 and/or 28. In Step 22, sample data is input into the input layer of the artificial neural network. The sample data may include input data relating to a sample composite material that has a known impact resistance.”) (e.g., paragraphs [0532] and [0533])
and material properties of the respective training composite laminate as output data (“In Step 24, a predicted impact resistance may be output from the artificial neural network relating to the sample composite material.”) (e.g., paragraph [0534]).
Regarding Claim 27, Liu in view of Malik teaches The method of claim 16. Malik further teaches wherein the material properties of the respective training composite laminate are determined by performing at least one of (i) a simulation based on the material features of the training composite laminate and (ii) a physical experiment with the respective training composite laminate (“A separate verification was carried out with simulations from ABAQUS and the ANN model for the cases presented in Table 34.”) (e.g., paragraph [0471]).
Regarding Claim 28, Liu in view of Malik teaches The method of claim 16. Malik further teaches wherein, during step d), a performance of the mechanical part is evaluated by performing a simulation based on the geometrical model, the load conditions and the predicted material properties (“A separate verification was carried out with simulations from ABAQUS and the ANN model for the cases presented in Table 34.” The simulations with ABAQUS may be simulations based on a geometrical model, load conditions, and predicted properties.) (e.g., paragraph [0471]).
Regarding Claim 29, Liu in view of Malik teaches The method of claim 16. Malik further teaches wherein, during step d), a performance of the mechanical part is evaluated using a second trained machine learning device that has been trained to predict a performance of a mechanical part based on a geometrical model, load conditions and material properties of the mechanical part (“After data relating to the composite material has been input into the artificial neural network, the artificial neural network processes the input data. The method then proceeds to Step 40. In Step 40, a predicted impact resistance may be calculated and output from the artificial neural network relating to the composite material.” Predicted impact resistance is interpreted as comprising a predicted performance. The artificial neural network may be duplicated and trained in the same way to predict performance.) (e.g., paragraph [0541]).
Regarding Claim 31, Liu in view of Malik teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 16. Liu further teaches A computer program product comprising program code for executing […] when executed on at least one computer (“In one aspect, the invention relates to a non-transitory tangible computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause a system to perform the above-disclosed methods for design optimization and/or performance prediction of a material system.”) (e.g., paragraph [0309]).
Regarding Claim 32, Liu teaches An apparatus for obtaining a composite laminate comprising a plurality of plies (“In another aspect, the invention relates to a computational system for design optimization and/or performance prediction of a material system.”) (e.g., paragraph [0310]).
The remaining limitations of Claim 32 recite substantially similar material to Claim 16, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Malik, further in view of King et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0327252 A1, effectively filed September 27, 2019), hereinafter King.
Regarding Claim 30, Liu in view of Malik teaches The method of claim 16. However, neither Liu nor Malik appear to specifically teach wherein, said step a) further includes receiving solid constraints and weak constraints for the geometrical model.
On the other hand, King, which relates to optional constraints in CAD, does teach wherein, said step a) further includes receiving solid constraints and weak constraints for the geometrical model. (“In a first act, each of the problem relationships may be categorized (act S312) or classified into subgroups. The subgroups may be: user-defined relationships, e.g., relationships which have been explicitly added by a user [and] relaxed relationships, e.g., relationships that a user may like to keep but are less critical than optional relationships and may be relaxed (e.g., ignored) when implementing the user operation.” The user-defined relationships are interpreted as solid constraints, and the relaxed relationships are interpreted as weak constraints.) (e.g., paragraphs [0068], [0069], and [0072]).
and wherein step e) further includes varying the geometrical model within the weak constraints (“The relaxed relationships represent those relationships that a user may like but when they are preventing a user operation, these relationships may be broken. As set out in act S318, the relaxed relationships are ignored which means that they are not solved and may thus be broken when generating the updated model.” Breaking relaxed relationships is analogous to varying the geometrical model within the weak constraints.) (e.g., paragraph [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine the modified reference of Liu in view of Malik with King. The Claimed invention is considered to be merely using a known technique to improve similar devices (method, or products) in the same way, see MPEP § 2143(I)(C). Liu teaches a method comprising a geometrical model. However, Liu does not appear to specifically teach using solid and weak constraints to define the geometrical model. On the other hand, King does disclose a method using user-defined and relaxed constraints. As both Liu and King relate to computer-aided design (e.g., paragraph [0982] of Liu discloses “The computational modeling research […] completes a whole software package that enables researchers […] to virtually design and optimize carbon fiber prepreg preforming”; paragraph [0010] of King discloses “The use of optional and relaxed relationships allows the automatic reconfiguration of the behavior of the CAD model.”), one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement of optional constraints in King to the model definition of Liu, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have predictably seen the combination as improving the flexibility of the models in King. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the modified reference of Liu in view of Malik with King in order to improve the modelling constraints of Liu.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE HWA-KAI TSENG whose telephone number is (571)272-3731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9A-5P PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571) 272-3676. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.H.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights