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 .
Response to Arguments
The 35 USC 101 rejection of claim 10 as failing to be directed to statutory categories of invention is overcome by the amendments, which direct it to a system, and is withdrawn.
Applicants remaining 35 USC 101 rejections are respectfully not persuasive. Use of generic processors, computers, and software is within the scope of mere instructions to apply the exception, as per MPEP 2106.05(f). The assertion that the claims improve technology or a computer is not supported by the actual claim language. While the claims distinguish over the prior art, as per MPEP 2106.04 I., “the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all” in eligibility. The 35 USC 101 rejections are maintained, with additional analysis to address the amended language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mathematical relationships and mental processes) without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented time-dependent local stress-strain method for high-temperature structural strength and service life analysis, wherein said method performed by one or more processors and is aimed at a load component under high-temperature conditions, said load component has a structural discontinuity area, and said method comprises: (The processor/computer are generic computer components being recited merely as tools to carry out the exception, equivalent to mere instructions to apply the exception as per MPEP 2106.05(f). The link to any physical structure being modeled and its conditions are merely generally linking the use of the exception to the technical field of structural analysis, as per MPEP 2106.05(h).)
a step for obtaining working conditions, (obtaining data is insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, as per MPEP 2106.05(g))
wherein said working conditions comprise a design temperature, a design load, total load holding time, material, and a structural critical point of component related to said structural discontinuity area; (these are all numerical parameters that are being used as input for mathematical physics calculations)
a step for obtaining material parameters, (obtaining data is insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, as per MPEP 2106.05(g))
wherein said material parameters comprise a creep constitutive equation, an elastic modulus, a Poisson's ratio, a stress-strain curve, and establishing an equivalent elastic modulus of material, and establishing, by said one or more processors using finite element analysis software, a finite element model according to said material parameters and said working conditions; (these are all numerical parameters that are being used as input for mathematical physics calculations. Finite element analysis is a mathematical algorithm for solving equations. The use of generic software with the processors is equivalent to mere instructions to apply the exception as per MPEP 2106.05(f).)
an elastoplasticity analysis step, performed by said one or more processors, which performs an elastoplasticity analysis based on said finite element model to determine an initial equivalent stress, an initial equivalent strain of said structural critical point of component and an initial stress in a far field area; (finite element analysis is a mathematical algorithm that uses calculations to perform numerical analysis. This is within the scope of mathematical relationships.)
a limit analysis step, performed by said one or more processors, which performs a limit analysis based on said finite element model to determine an ultimate load and an initial reference stress of said structural critical point; (Further mathematical calculations according to a mathematical algorithm using numerical data that are within the scope of mathematical relationships)
an elasticity analysis step, performed by said one or more processors, which performs an elasticity analysis based on said finite element model to determine an elastic stress, an elastic strain, and a stress concentration factor of said structural critical point; (Further mathematical calculations according to a mathematical algorithm using numerical data that are within the scope of mathematical relationships)
a boundary condition setting step, which sets boundary conditions for an iterative operation, performed by said one or more processors, wherein said boundary conditions comprise: total load holding time, total time, a maximum allowable stress drop, and a time step; (Further mathematical calculations according to a mathematical algorithm using numerical data that are within the scope of mathematical relationships)
an iterative operation step, performed by said one or more processors, which comprises: (iteration is part of the mathematical algorithm, repeating numerical calculations according to mathematical constraints)
in each iteration step, calculating displacement control intermediate variables and load control intermediate variables, and calculating a resulting variable of each iteration step based on displacement control intermediate variables and load control intermediate variables, wherein said resulting variable is a stress drop; (Further mathematical calculations according to a mathematical algorithm using numerical data that are within the scope of mathematical relationships)
comparing said stress drop with said maximum allowable stress drop; if said stress drop is greater than said maximum allowable stress drop, adjusting said time step and subsequently recalculating intermediate variables and resulting variable of said iteration step; (Further mathematical calculations according to a mathematical algorithm using numerical data that are within the scope of mathematical relationships)
if said stress drop is not greater than said maximum allowable stress drop, outputting calculation results of said iteration step: a total stress, a total strain, a reference stress, a reference strain, a far field stress, and total load holding time; (Further mathematical calculations according to a mathematical algorithm using numerical data that are within the scope of mathematical relationships)
judging whether calculation time has reached total time; if total time has been reached, ending said iterative operation step; and if total time is not reached, proceeding to a next iteration step; and (a person can mentally perform this judgement by observing calculation results, alternatively this is accomplished via mathematical comparison of the two numbers to see if the threshold has been met, and is part of the mathematical algorithm)
a result integration step, which determines a correlation between a local stress and strain of structural critical point of component and time according to calculation results output by all iteration steps, and (Further mathematical calculations according to a mathematical algorithm using numerical data that are within the scope of mathematical relationships. Note the final output of the claim is a numerical correlation.)
generates and displays, on a display device, a chart of said local stress and said local strain of said structural critical point versus time. (insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, as per MPEP 2106.05(g), notably example iii. “selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information [[…]], for collection, analysis and display”. Note that the claim limitation recites details of what data is displayed and how it is selected, but not how that display is structured beyond a generic chart.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the following additional elements: 1) mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (software the use of a computer or processor/memory), 2) generally linking the use of the exception to the technical field of structural analysis, and 3) insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (obtaining numerical data) and selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (displaying a chart). The software and its implied computer or processor/memory is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer or processor/memory for software that is performing a generic computer function of executing instructions and storing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The specification that data is obtained is only tangentially linked to the calculation and analysis steps, and does not meaningfully limit the claim. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 element of using software and its implied computer or processor/memory to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-9 recite only further details of the mathematical relationships, including with the explicit equations/functions used for the calculations and further steps of the mathematical algorithm. The above analysis therefore remains applicable to these claims. Claim 2 also recites performing a tensile test to obtain strength, but this is just a further recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, and the above discussion of data gathering in the context of MPEP 2106.05(g) applies to this step as well.
Claim 10 is substantially similar to claim 1, and is rejected under the same rationale/grounds as those set forth above for claim 1.
In summary, no claims are patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Examiner notes that this is a patent prosecution highway case, and the findings in the instant case agree with those of the pertinent foreign office decision in regards to distinguishing over the prior art. The claims require extremely detailed and extensive methodology be used for simulating stress-strain relationships, notably with specific displacement control variables and stress drop considerations that are used for local stress/strain structural critical point analysis. While there is a wide scope of prior art for simulating stress and strain of a structure with finite element modeling, none of the prior art teaches or makes obvious the exact specific methodology that is set forth by the entirety of claim 1 in combination. The most pertinent prior art is:
Shang (CN 107977516 A)
Liu (CN 112131656 A)
Ueno (JP 2014206915 A)
Seif (Seif, M., Main, J., Weigand, J., McAllister, T. P., & Luecke, W. (2016, May). Finite element modeling of structural steel component failure at elevated temperatures. In Structures (Vol. 6, pp. 134-145). Elsevier.)
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 BIJAN MAPAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 11:00-8:30.
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.
/BIJAN MAPAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
