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 .
This Office Action is in response to claims filed on 04/13/2023.
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/13/2023, 02/23/2024, 05/20/2024, 07/03/2025, 04/14/2026, 07/13/2026 and 07/23/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-17 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.
Claims 1 and 8 recite the limitation "except for an undetermined layer”. It is unclear from the claim language what is an undetermined layer. It is unclear if there is an undetermined layer what inputs are in step a). Correction is required. For compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting the claim as follows
an input unit for inputting (a) any one or more physical properties of an elastic modulus, a Poisson’s ratio, a shear modulus, a thickness, a lamination angle, or a set number of zones of each layer and (b) any one or more physical properties of an elastic modulus or a thickness of the undetermined layer.
Claims 3, 4, 10 recite the limitation "except for an undetermined layer”. It is unclear from the claim language what is an undetermined layer. It is unclear if there is an undetermined layer what inputs are in step a). Correction is required. For compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting the claim as follows
an input unit for inputting (a) any one or more physical properties of an elastic modulus, a Poisson’s ratio, a shear modulus, a thickness, a lamination angle, or a set number of zones of each layer
Claim 10 recite the limitation “first step” and “second step”, it’s unclear to what it refers back to, or is it a new definition of the term. These terms lack antecedent basis since the terms have not been previously mentioned or defined. Correction is required.
Claim 11 recite the limitation “third step”, “fourth step”, “fifth step”, “sixth step” and “seventh step”, it’s unclear to what it refers back to, or is it a new definition of the term. These terms lack antecedent basis since the terms have not been previously mentioned or defined. Correction is required.
Claim 12 recite the limitation “eighth step” and “ninth step”, it’s unclear to what it refers back to, or is it a new definition of the term. These terms lack antecedent basis since the terms have not been previously mentioned or defined. Correction is required.
Claim 13 recite the limitation “V21”, it’s unclear to what it refers back to, or is it a new definition of the term. This term lack antecedent basis since the term has not been previously mentioned or defined. Correction is required.
Claim 15 recite the limitation “
B
i
j
=
1
2
∑
k
=
1
r
Q
i
j
k
(
Z
k
2
-
Z
k
-
1
2
)
”, it’s unclear what r to refers back to, or is it a new definition of the term. These terms lack antecedent basis since the terms have not been previously mentioned or defined. Correction is required.
Claim 17 recite the limitation “the set compliance matrices([a]x,y, [c]x,y, [d]x,y)”, it’s unclear to what it refers back to, or is it a new definition of the term. These terms lack antecedent basis since the terms have not been previously mentioned or defined. Correction is required.
Dependent claims do not resolve the indefinite issue in the independent claim and thus are also rejected under 112(b) by virtue of their dependence on the rejected independent claim.
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.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A). Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Claims 1-20 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 a mental process and a mathematical calculation; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 1:
Claims 1-15 are directed to the statutory category of processes.
Claim 1 Step 2A prong 1:
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. Abstract ideas are bolded.
A system for predicting physical properties of a multilayer material, comprising:
an input unit for inputting (a) any one or more physical properties of an elastic modulus, a Poisson's ratio, a shear modulus, a thickness, a lamination angle, or a set number of zones of each layer, except for an undetermined layer, and (b) any one or more physical properties of an elastic modulus or a thickness of the undetermined layer;
a control unit which is connected to the input unit and comprises an entire laminate property calculation unit and an undetermined layer property calculation unit;
a display that is connected to the control unit; and
a storage unit that is connected to the control unit.
The limitations “predicting physical properties of a multilayer material” are an abstract ideas because it is directed to a mathematical model. The limitation, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed using mathematical equations” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Also, the limitation, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could, mentally or on paper, observe, evaluate or analyze to make the determination of a model and its output.
Claim 1 Step 2A prong 2:
Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present general field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
“A system for” (general field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h))
“an input unit for inputting (a) any one or more physical properties of an elastic modulus, a Poisson's ratio, a shear modulus, a thickness, a lamination angle, or a set number of zones of each layer, except for an undetermined layer, and (b) any one or more physical properties of an elastic modulus or a thickness of the undetermined layer” (general field of use and data gathering – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h))
“a control unit which is connected to the input unit and comprises an entire laminate property calculation unit and an undetermined layer property calculation unit” (Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.04(f) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h))
“a display that is connected to the control unit” (Particular machine, MPEP 2106.05(b))
“a storage unit that is connected to the control unit” (Particular machine, MPEP 2106.05(b))
Claim 1 Step 2B:
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations considered directed towards field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP2106.05(g).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 1 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2 further recites: “wherein the control unit is configured to: set compliance matrices for stiffness matrices of the multilayer material, which is an entire laminate, using the input physical properties, calculate the physical properties of the multilayer material, which is the entire laminate, using values of the set compliance matrices, and determine whether the calculated physical properties converge to final target physical properties.” The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the models that are being determined (mental observation of determining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the input unit is for inputting (a) an elastic modulus, a Poisson's ratio, a shear modulus, a thickness, a lamination angle, and a set number of zones of each layer, except for an undetermined layer, and (b) any one or more of an elastic modulus or thickness of the undetermined layer.” These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the models that are being determined (mental observation of determining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the control unit, for the multilayer material in which two or more materials are laminated, is configured to: receives (a) the elastic modulus, Poisson's ratio, shear modulus, thickness, lamination angle, and set number of zones of each layer, except for an undetermined layer, and (b) any one or more of the elastic modulus and or thickness of the undetermined layer, calculates a stiffness matrix of each layer using the elastic modulus, Poisson's ratio, and shear modulus of each layer, except for the undetermined layer, resets the stiffness matrix of each layer by reflecting the lamination angle of each layer in the obtained stiffness matrix, calculates stiffness matrices of the multilayer material, which is the entire laminate, using a value of the stiffness matrix reset by receiving the thickness information of each layer, sets compliance matrices for the calculated stiffness matrices of the multilayer material, which is the entire laminate, and calculates any one or more of elastic moduli (/Ex,y), Poisson's ratios (/vx,y), and or shear moduli (/Gx,y) of the multilayer material, which is the entire laminate, using the total thickness and values of the set compliance matrices of the multilayer material, which is the entire laminate, and determines whether any one or more of the calculated elastic moduli (/Ex,y), Poisson's ratios (/vx,y), and or shear moduli (/Gx,y) of the multilayer material converge to any one or more of the target elastic moduli (target /Ex,y), target Poisson's ratios (target /ux,y),and or target shear moduli (target /Gx,y) received as the final target physical properties.” These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the models that are being determined (mental observation of determining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 5 recites “wherein, in the case in which the elastic modulus is selected from the elastic modulus or the thickness of the undetermined layer and input, when any one or more of the calculated elastic moduli (/Ex,y), Poisson's ratios (/ux,y), or shear moduli (/Gx,y) of the multilayer material do not converge to any one or more of the target elastic moduli (target /Ex,y), target Poisson's ratios (target /ux,y), or target shear moduli (target /Gx,y) received as final target physical properties, the control unit is configured to updates the value of the elastic modulus of the undetermined layer.” These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the models that are being determined (mental observation of determining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6 recites “wherein, in the case in which the thickness is selected from the elastic modulus and the thickness of the undetermined layer and input, when any one or more of the calculated elastic moduli (/Ex,y), Poisson's ratios (/ux,y), or shear moduli (/Gx,y) of the multilayer material do not converge to any one or more of the target elastic moduli (target /Ex,y), target Poisson's ratios (target /ux,y), or target shear moduli (target /Gx,y) received as the final target physical properties, the control unit updates a value of the thickness of the undetermined layer.” These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the models that are being determined (mental observation of determining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 7 recites “wherein, when any one or more of the calculated elastic moduli (/Ex,y), Poisson's ratios (/ux,y), or shear moduli (/Gx,y) of the multilayer material converge to any one or more of the received target elastic moduli (target /Ex,y), target Poisson's ratios (target /ux,y), or target shear moduli (target /Gx,y) as the final target physical properties, the control unit is configured to outputs any one or more of the elastic modulus, Poisson's ratio, shear modulus or thickness of the undetermined layer.” These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the models that are being determined (mental observation of determining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claims 8-17, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 1:
Claim 8 Step 2A prong 1:
The claim language is substantially similar as claim 1, except for the following claim elements/limitations: A method of predicting the physical properties of a multilayer material in which two or more materials are laminated, comprising:
calculating physical properties of the multilayer material, which is an entire laminate, using the input physical properties; and
determining whether the calculated physical properties converge to the final target physical properties.
The claim does not include any additional abstract ideas from claim 1
The limitations “determining whether the calculated physical properties converge to the final target physical properties” are an abstract ideas because it is directed to a mathematical model. The limitation, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed using mathematical equations” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Also, the limitation, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could, mentally or on paper, observe, evaluate or analyze to make the determination of a model and its output.
Claim 8 Step 2A prong 2:
Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present general field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
“A method of” (general field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h)) (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f)) .
“ calculating physical properties of the multilayer material, which is an entire laminate, using the input physical properties” (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f)) .
Claim 8 Step 2B:
The additional limitations found in claim 8, these additional elements are mere instructions to apply the mathematical formulas, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more. Step 2A Prong I and Step 2B.
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 8 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 2; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 10 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 3; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 11 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 4; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 12 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 5; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the calculating of the stiffness matrix of each layer (third step) includes calculating stiffness matrices ([Q]1,2) in machine direction (1) and transverse direction (2) of each layer (k) using elastic moduli (Ek1,2), Poisson’s ratios (vk1,2), and shear moduli (Gk1,2) as shown in Equation 1 below: [Equation 1]
σ
1
σ
2
τ
6
=
Q
11
Q
12
0
Q
12
Q
22
0
0
0
Q
66
ε
1
ε
2
γ
6
Q
11
=
E
1
1
-
V
12
V
21
Q
22
=
E
2
1
-
V
12
V
21
Q
12
=
Q
21
=
V
21
E
1
1
-
V
12
V
21
=
V
12
E
2
1
-
V
12
V
21
Q
66
=
G
12
In Equation 1, for an isotropic material, G=E/2(1+v).” These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the models that are being determined (mental observation of determining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the resetting of the stiffness matrix of each layer (fourth step) includes resetting stiffness matrices ([Q]kx,y) of each layer (k), as shown in Equation 2 below, by reflecting the lamination angle (θk) of each layer (k) in the obtained stiffness matrices ([Q]kl,2): [Equation 2]
T
=
m
2
n
2
2
m
n
n
2
m
2
-
2
m
n
-
m
n
m
n
m
2
-
n
2
m
=
c
o
s
θ
n
=
s
i
n
θ
Q
x
x
Q
x
y
2
Q
x
s
Q
x
y
Q
y
y
2
Q
y
s
Q
x
s
Q
y
s
2
Q
s
s
=
T
-
1
Q
11
Q
12
0
Q
12
Q
22
0
0
0
2
Q
66
T
σ
x
σ
y
τ
s
=
Q
x
x
Q
x
y
Q
x
s
Q
x
y
Q
y
y
Q
y
s
Q
x
s
0
Q
66
ε
x
ε
y
γ
s
Stress-Strain relation reflecting angle (dif-x,y)” These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the models that are being determined (mental observation of determining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the calculating of stiffness matrices of the multilayer material (fifth step) includes calculating stiffness matrices ([A]x,y,[B]x,y,[D]x,y) of the multilayer material, which is the entire laminate, as shown in Equation 3 below, using the values of the stiffness matrices reset by receiving the thickness information of each layer (k):
[Equation 3]
A
i
j
=
∑
k
=
1
n
Q
i
j
k
(
Z
k
-
Z
k
-
1
)
B
i
j
=
1
2
∑
k
=
1
r
Q
i
j
k
(
Z
k
2
-
Z
k
-
1
2
)
D
i
j
=
1
3
∑
k
=
1
n
Q
i
j
k
(
Z
k
3
-
Z
k
-
1
3
)
wherein, in Equation 3, k represents each layer, and the multilayer material has a total of n layers.” These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the models that are being determined (mental observation of determining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the setting of compliance matrices (sixth step) includes setting compliance matrices ([a]x,y,[b]x,y,[c]x,y,[d]x,y) for calculated stiffness matrices ([A]x,y,[B]x,y,[D]x,y) of the multilayer material, which is the entire laminate, as shown in Equation 4 below:
[Equation 4]
A
x
x
A
x
y
A
x
s
A
y
x
A
y
y
A
y
s
A
s
x
A
s
y
A
s
s
B
x
x
B
x
y
B
x
s
B
y
x
B
y
y
B
y
s
B
s
x
B
s
y
B
s
s
B
x
x
B
x
y
B
s
x
B
y
x
B
y
y
B
s
y
B
s
x
B
s
y
B
s
s
D
x
x
D
x
y
D
x
s
D
y
x
D
y
y
D
y
s
D
s
x
D
s
y
D
s
s
-
1
=
a
x
x
a
x
y
a
x
s
a
y
x
a
y
y
a
y
s
a
s
x
a
s
y
a
s
s
b
x
x
b
x
y
b
x
s
b
y
x
b
y
y
b
y
s
b
s
x
b
s
y
b
s
s
C
x
x
C
x
y
C
x
s
C
y
x
C
y
y
C
y
s
C
s
x
C
s
y
C
s
s
d
x
x
d
x
y
d
x
s
d
x
y
d
y
y
d
s
y
d
x
s
d
s
y
d
s
s
” These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the models that are being determined (mental observation of determining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the calculating of elastic moduli, Poisson's ratios, and shear moduli of the multilayer material (seventh step) includes calculating elastic moduli (/Ex,y), Poisson's ratios (/vx,y), and shear moduli (/Gx,y) of the multilayer material, which is the entire laminate, using the total thickness (h) and values of the set compliance matrices ([a]x,y,[b]x,y,[c]x,y,[d]x,y) of the multilayer material, which is the entire laminate as shown in Equation 5 below:
[Equation 5]
/
E
x
=
1
h
a
x
x
/
G
x
y
=
1
h
a
s
s
/
V
x
y
=
-
a
y
x
a
x
x
/
V
y
x
=
-
a
x
y
a
y
y
” These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the models that are being determined (mental observation of determining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weckner et al. US 8,645,110 B1, Published: Feb. 4, 2014, (hereafter Weckner).
Regarding claim 1. Weckner teaches a system for predicting the physical properties of a multilayer material (Fig 13, element 212, laminate property) (Col 17, Lines 5-20, calculating laminate property based on the characterized stiffness of the laminate), comprising:
an input unit for inputting (a) any one or more physical properties of an elastic modulus, a Poisson's ratio, a shear modulus, a thickness, a lamination angle, or a set number of zones of each layer, except for an undetermined layer (Col 18, Lines 15-35, select material, analyze material properties, elastic moduli, shear, Poisson ratios), and
(b) any one or more physical properties of an elastic modulus or a thickness of the undetermined layer (Col 17, Lines 15-30, laminate properties, given ply thickness);
a control unit which is connected to the input unit and comprises an entire laminate property calculation unit and an undetermined layer property calculation unit (Fig 14, calculator, connected to selector, laminate property calculator);
a display that is connected to the control unit (Fig 14, Display device); and
a storage unit that is connected to the control unit (Fig 14, Computer readable media).
Regarding claim 2. Weckner teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to: set compliance matrices for the stiffness matrices of the multilayer material (Col 7, 10-15, coefficients of a stiffness matrix C for the ply),
which is an entire laminate, using the input physical properties (Col 7, Lines 15-40, five engineering constants),
calculate the physical properties of the multilayer material, which is the entire laminate, using values of the set compliance matrices (Col 15, Lines 10-25, calculate the five material invariants), and
determines whether the calculated physical properties converge to final target physical properties (Col 17, Lines 45-55, laminate configuration converge to a feasible solution).
Regarding claim 3. Weckner teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the input unit is for inputting (a) an elastic modulus, a Poisson's ratio, a shear modulus, a thickness, a lamination angle, and a set number of zones of each layer, except for an undetermined layer (Col 18, Lines 15-35, select material, analyze material properties, elastic moduli, shear, Poisson ratios), and
(b) any one or more of an elastic modulus or thickness of the undetermined layer (Col 17, Lines 15-30, laminate properties, given ply thickness).
Regarding claim 4. Weckner teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the control unit, for the multilayer material in which two or more materials are laminated (Fig 3, Laminated component) (Fig 10, multi layer laminated component) (Fig 12, multiple ply (layers)), is configured to:
receives (a) the elastic modulus, Poisson's ratio, shear modulus, thickness, lamination angle, and set number of zones of each layer, except for an undetermined layer (Col 18, Lines 15-35, select material, analyze material properties, elastic moduli, shear, Poisson ratios), and
(b) any one or more of the elastic modulus and or thickness of the undetermined layer (Col 17, Lines 15-30, laminate properties, given ply thickness),
calculates a stiffness matrix of each layer using the elastic modulus, Poisson's ratio, and shear modulus of each layer, except for the undetermined layer (Col 7, Lines 10-45, Cij coefficients of a stiffness matrix C),
resets the stiffness matrix of each layer by reflecting the lamination angle of each layer in the obtained stiffness matrix (Col 7, Lines 45-55, transversely isotropic plies of the laminate, reduced stiffness matrix) (Col 8, Lines 30-45, reduced stiffness matrix, reflects the angle in the trigonometric function),
calculates stiffness matrices of the multilayer material, which is the entire laminate, using a value of the stiffness matrix reset by receiving the thickness information of each layer (Col 10, Lines 45-55, Stiffness matrix) (Col 11, Lines 1-30, represents coefficients of the kth ply and corresponds to the transformed reduced stiffness matrix),
sets compliance matrices for the calculated stiffness matrices of the multilayer material, which is the entire laminate (Col 10, Lines 45-65, A, B, D and G stiffness matrices ), and
calculates any one or more of elastic moduli (/Ex,y), Poisson's ratios (/vx,y), or shear moduli (/Gx,y) of the multilayer material, which is the entire laminate, using the total thickness and values of the set compliance matrices of the multilayer material, which is the entire laminate (Col 15, Lines 10-35, for each material system, a set of five material invariants are calculated) (Col 16, Lines 10-30, four independent material invariants are required), and
determines whether any one or more of the calculated elastic moduli (/Ex,y), Poisson's ratios (/vx,y), or shear moduli (/Gx,y) of the multilayer material converge to any one or more of the target elastic moduli (target /Ex,y), target Poisson's ratios (target /vx,y), or target shear moduli (target /Gx,y) received as the final target physical properties (Col 17, Lines 20-35, difference between the calculated laminate properties and the desired laminate properties is greater than a predetermined (target) amount, optimized by adjusting, material invariant and lamination parameters).
Regarding claim 5. Weckner teaches the system of claim 1, wherein, in the case in which the elastic modulus is selected from the elastic modulus or the thickness of the undetermined layer and input (Col 17, Lines 15-30, laminate properties, given ply thickness),
when any one or more of the calculated elastic moduli (/Ex,y), Poisson's ratios (/ux,y), or shear moduli (/Gx,y) of the multilayer material do not converge to any one or more of the target elastic moduli (target /Ex,y), target Poisson's ratios (target /ux,y), or target shear moduli (target /Gx,y) received as final target physical properties (Col 17, Lines 20-35, difference between the calculated laminate properties and the desired laminate properties is greater than a predetermined (target) amount, optimized by adjusting, material invariant and lamination parameters),
the control unit is configured to updates the value of the elastic modulus of the undetermined layer (Col 17, Lines 20-50, process is repeated in an iterative manner, within a predetermined range of the desired, converges to a feasible solution, The laminate properties are re calculated based upon the newly calculated stiffness matrix) (Col 18, Lines 25-35, mechanical properties of the materials, elastic properties).
Regarding claim 6. Weckner teaches the system of claim 1, wherein, in the case in which the thickness is selected from the elastic modulus and the thickness of the undetermined layer and input (Col 18, Lines 50-65, stacking sequence characterize, calculating, material systems, lamination parameters, ply angle and thicknesses),
when any one or more of the calculated elastic moduli (/Ex,y), Poisson's ratios (/ux,y), or shear moduli (/Gx,y) of the multilayer material do not converge to any one or more of the target elastic moduli (target /Ex,y), target Poisson's ratios (target /ux,y), or target shear moduli (target /Gx,y) received as the final target physical properties (Col 17, Lines 20-35, difference between the calculated laminate properties and the desired laminate properties is greater than a predetermined (target) amount, optimized by adjusting, material invariant and lamination parameters),
the control unit updates a value of the thickness of the undetermined layer (Col 17, Lines 20-50, process is repeated in an iterative manner, within a predetermined range of the desired, converges to a feasible solution, The laminate properties are re calculated based upon the newly calculated stiffness matrix) (Col 18, Lines 25-35, mechanical properties of the materials, elastic properties).
Regarding claim 7. Weckner teaches the system of claim 1, wherein, when any one or more of the calculated elastic moduli (/Ex,y), Poisson's ratios (/ux,y), or shear moduli (/Gx,y) of the multilayer material converge to any one or more of the received target elastic moduli (target /Ex,y), target Poisson's ratios (target /ux,y), or target shear moduli (target /Gx,y) as the final target physical properties (Col 17, Lines 20-35, difference between the calculated laminate properties and the desired laminate properties is greater than a predetermined (target) amount, optimized by adjusting, material invariant and lamination parameters),
the control unit is configured to outputs any one or more of the elastic modulus, Poisson's ratio, shear modulus or thickness of the undetermined layer (Col 17, Lines 20-50, process is repeated in an iterative manner, within a predetermined range of the desired, converges to a feasible solution, The laminate properties are re calculated based upon the newly calculated stiffness matrix) (Col 18, Lines 25-35, mechanical properties of the materials, elastic properties).
Regarding claim 8. Weckner teaches a method of predicting the physical properties of a multilayer material in which two or more materials are laminated (Fig 13, element 212, laminate property) (Col 17, Lines 5-20, calculating laminate property based on the characterized stiffness of the laminate), comprising:
inputting any one or more of physical properties of an elastic modulus, a Poisson's ratio, a shear modulus, a thickness, a lamination angle, or a set number of zones of each layer, except for an undetermined layer (Col 18, Lines 15-35, select material, analyze material properties, elastic moduli, shear, Poisson ratios), and any one or more physical properties of an elastic modulus or a thickness of the undetermined layer as input values (Col 17, Lines 15-30, laminate properties, given ply thickness);
calculating physical properties of the multilayer material, which is an entire laminate, using the input physical properties (Fig 14, calculator, connected to selector, laminate property calculator) (Col 15, Lines 10-25, calculate the five material invariants); and
determining whether the calculated physical properties converge to the final target physical properties (Col 17, Lines 45-55, laminate configuration converge to a feasible solution).
Regarding claim 9. Weckner teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the calculating of physical properties of a multilayer material comprises setting compliance matrices for stiffness matrices of the multilayer material, which is the entire laminate (Col 7, 10-15, coefficients of a stiffness matrix C for the ply); and
calculating physical properties of the multilayer material, which is the entire laminate, using values of the set compliance matrices (Col 15, Lines 10-25, calculate the five material invariants).
Regarding claim 10. Weckner teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the inputting as input values comprises inputting an elastic modulus, a Poisson's ratio, a shear modulus, a thickness, a lamination angle, and a set number of zones of each layer, except for an undetermined layer (first step) (Col 18, Lines 15-35, select material, analyze material properties, elastic moduli, shear, Poisson ratios); and
inputting any one or more of an elastic modulus or thickness of the undetermined layer (second step) (Col 17, Lines 15-30, laminate properties, given ply thickness).
Regarding claim 11. Weckner teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the calculating of physical properties of the multilayer material comprises (Fig 3, Laminated component) (Fig 10, multi layer laminated component) (Fig 12, multiple ply (layers))
calculating a stiffness matrix of each layer, except for an undetermined layer, using the elastic modulus, Poisson's ratio, and shear modulus (third step) (Col 7, Lines 10-45, Cij coefficients of a stiffness matrix C);
resetting a stiffness matrix of each layer by reflecting the lamination angle of each layer in obtained stiffness matrix (fourth step) (Col 7, Lines 45-55, transversely isotropic plies of the laminate, reduced stiffness matrix) (Col 8, Lines 30-45, reduced stiffness matrix, reflects the angle in the trigonometric function);
calculating stiffness matrices of the multilayer material, which is the entire laminate, using value of the stiffness matrix reset by receiving thickness information of each layer (fifth step) (Col 10, Lines 45-55, Stiffness matrix) (Col 11, Lines 1-30, represents coefficients of the kth ply and corresponds to the transformed reduced stiffness matrix);
setting compliance matrices for calculated stiffness matrices of the multilayer material, which is the entire laminate (sixth step) (Col 10, Lines 45-65, A, B, D and G stiffness matrices); and
calculating elastic moduli, Poisson's ratios, and shear moduli of the multilayer material, which is the entire laminate, using a total thickness and values of the set compliance matrices of the multilayer material, which is the entire laminate (seventh step) (Col 15, Lines 10-35, for each material system, a set of five material invariants are calculated) (Col 16, Lines 10-30, four independent material invariants are required).
Regarding claim 12. Weckner teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the determining whether the calculated properties converge to the final target physical properties comprises:
inputting elastic moduli, Poisson's ratios and shear moduli as the final target physical properties (eighth step) (Col 18, Lines 15-35, select material, analyze material properties, elastic moduli, shear, Poisson ratios); and
determining whether the calculated elastic moduli (/Ex,y), Poisson's ratios (/vx,y), and shear moduli (/Gx,y) converge to the target elastic moduli (target /Ex,y), target Poisson's ratios (target /vx,y), and target shear moduli (target /Gx,y) input as the final target physical properties (ninth step) (Col 17, Lines 20-35, difference between the calculated laminate properties and the desired laminate properties is greater than a predetermined (target) amount, optimized by adjusting, material invariant and lamination parameters).
Regarding claim 15. Weckner teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the calculating of stiffness matrices of the multilayer material (fifth step) includes calculating stiffness matrices ([A]x,y,[B]x,y,[D]x,y) of the multilayer material, which is the entire laminate, as shown in Equation 3 below, using the values of the stiffness matrices reset by receiving the thickness information of each layer (k):
[Equation 3]
A
i
j
=
∑
k
=
1
n
Q
i
j
k
(
Z
k
-
Z
k
-
1
)
B
i
j
=
1
2
∑
k
=
1
r
Q
i
j
k
(
Z
k
2
-
Z
k
-
1
2
)
D
i
j
=
1
3
∑
k
=
1
n
Q
i
j
k
(
Z
k
3
-
Z
k
-
1
3
)
wherein, in Equation 3, k represents each layer, and the multilayer material has a total of n layers (Col 10, Lines 45-65, equation 480, 500, 520).
Regarding claim 16. Weckner teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the setting of compliance matrices (sixth step) includes setting compliance matrices ([a]x,y,[b]x,y,[c]x,y,[d]x,y) for calculated stiffness matrices ([A]x,y,[B]x,y,[D]x,y) of the multilayer material, which is the entire laminate, as shown in Equation 4 below:
[Equation 4]
A
x
x
A
x
y
A
x
s
A
y
x
A
y
y
A
y
s
A
s
x
A
s
y
A
s
s
B
x
x
B
x
y
B
x
s
B
y
x
B
y
y
B
y
s
B
s
x
B
s
y
B
s
s
B
x
x
B
x
y
B
s
x
B
y
x
B
y
y
B
s
y
B
s
x
B
s
y
B
s
s
D
x
x
D
x
y
D
x
s
D
y
x
D
y
y
D
y
s
D
s
x
D
s
y
D
s
s
-
1
=
a
x
x
a
x
y
a
x
s
a
y
x
a
y
y
a
y
s
a
s
x
a
s
y
a
s
s
b
x
x
b
x
y
b
x
s
b
y
x
b
y
y
b
y
s
b
s
x
b
s
y
b
s
s
C
x
x
C
x
y
C
x
s
C
y
x
C
y
y
C
y
s
C
s
x
C
s
y
C
s
s
d
x
x
d
x
y
d
x
s
d
x
y
d
y
y
d
s
y
d
x
s
d
s
y
d
s
s
(Cols 10-11, Lines 15-25, equations 460,470, 490, 510) (Col 11 equations 620, 630, 640, 650, 660 and 670)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weckner et al. US 8,645,110 B1, Published: Feb. 4, 2014, (hereafter Weckner), in views of Pradeep Kumar Mishra, NPL, “Prediction of in-plane stiffness of multi-material 3D printed laminate parts fabricated by FDM process using CLT and its mechanical behaviour under tensile load”, Published: 2020 (hereafter Mishra).
Regarding claim 13 Weckner teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the calculating of the stiffness matrix of each layer (third step) includes
In Equation 1, for an isotropic material, G=E/2(1+v) (Col 6, Lines 45-55, G23).
Weckner does not teach calculating stiffness matrices ([Q]1,2) in machine direction (1) and transverse direction (2) of each layer (k) using elastic moduli (Ek1,2), Poisson’s ratios (vk1,2), and shear moduli (Gk1,2) as shown in Equation 1 below: [Equation 1]
σ
1
σ
2
τ
6
=
Q
11
Q
12
0
Q
12
Q
22
0
0
0
Q
66
ε
1
ε
2
γ
6
Q
11
=
E
1
1
-
V
12
V
21
Q
22
=
E
2
1
-
V
12
V
21
Q
12
=
Q
21
=
V
21
E
1
1
-
V
12
V
21
=
V
12
E
2
1
-
V
12
V
21
Q
66
=
G
12
.
Mishra teaches calculating stiffness matrices ([Q]1,2) in machine direction (1) and transverse direction (2) of each layer (k) using elastic moduli (Ek1,2), Poisson’s ratios (vk1,2), and shear moduli (Gk1,2) as shown in Equation 1 below: [Equation 1]
σ
1
σ
2
τ
6
=
Q
11
Q
12
0
Q
12
Q
22
0
0
0
Q
66
ε
1
ε
2
γ
6
Q
11
=
E
1
1
-
V
12
V
21
Q
22
=
E
2
1
-
V
12
V
21
Q
12
=
Q
21
=
V
21
E
1
1
-
V
12
V
21
=
V
12
E
2
1
-
V
12
V
21
Q
66
=
G
12
.
(Page 3, equations 2 and 4, ).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Weckner to incorporate the teachings of Mishra to calculate the stiffness matrices, one ordinary skill in the art would be motivated because it adds a new dimension in the area of additive manufacturing, and the result was validated against experimental values (Mishra, Page 1, abstract).
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weckner et al. US 8,645,110 B1, Published: Feb. 4, 2014, (hereafter Weckner), in views of Tianyun Yao, NPL, “A method to predict the ultimate tensile strength of 3D printing polylactic acid (PLA) materials with different printing orientations”, Published: 03 January 2019 (hereafter Yao).
Regarding claim 14. Weckner teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the resetting of the stiffness matrix of each layer (fourth step) includes
Weckner does not teach resetting stiffness matrices ([Q]kx,y) of each layer (k), as shown in Equation 2 below, by reflecting the lamination angle (θk) of each layer (k) in the obtained stiffness matrices ([Q]kl,2): [Equation 2]
T
=
m
2
n
2
2
m
n
n
2
m
2
-
2
m
n
-
m
n
m
n
m
2
-
n
2
m
=
c
o
s
θ
n
=
s
i
n
θ
Q
x
x
Q
x
y
2
Q
x
s
Q
x
y
Q
y
y
2
Q
y
s
Q
x
s
Q
y
s
2
Q
s
s
=
T
-
1
Q
11
Q
12
0
Q
12
Q
22
0
0
0
2
Q
66
T
σ
x
σ
y
τ
s
=
Q
x
x
Q
x
y
Q
x
s
Q
x
y
Q
y
y
Q
y
s
Q
x
s
0
Q
s
s
ε
x
ε
y
γ
s
Stress-Strain relation reflecting angle (dif-x,y).
Yao teaches resetting stiffness matrices ([Q]kx,y) of each layer (k), as shown in Equation 2 below, by reflecting the lamination angle (θk) of each layer (k) in the obtained stiffness matrices ([Q]kl,2): [Equation 2]
T
=
m
2
n
2
2
m
n
n
2
m
2
-
2
m
n
-
m
n
m
n
m
2
-
n
2
m
=
c
o
s
θ
n
=
s
i
n
θ
Q
x
x
Q
x
y
2
Q
x
s
Q
x
y
Q
y
y
2
Q
y
s
Q
x
s
Q
y
s
2
Q
s
s
=
T
-
1
Q
11
Q
12
0
Q
12
Q
22
0
0
0
2
Q
66
T
σ
x
σ
y
τ
s
=
Q
x
x
Q
x
y
Q
x
s
Q
x
y
Q
y
y
Q
y
s
Q
x
s
0
Q
66
ε
x
ε
y
γ
s
Stress-Strain relation reflecting angle (dif-x,y).
(Page 396, equations 5 and 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Weckner to incorporate the teachings of Yao to resetting a stiffness matrices one ordinary skill in the art would be motivated because it predicts the ultimate tensile strength and verify the tensile experiments (Yao, Page 393, abstract).
Regarding claim 17. Weckner teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the calculating of elastic moduli, Poisson's ratios, and shear moduli of the multilayer material (seventh step) (Col 9, equations 430, 440 and 450) includes
Weckner does not teach calculating elastic moduli (/Ex,y), Poisson's ratios (/vx,y), and shear moduli (/Gx,y) of the multilayer material, which is the entire laminate, using the total thickness (h) and values of the set compliance matrices ([a]x,y,[b]x,y,[c]x,y,[d]x,y) of the multilayer material, which is the entire laminate as shown in Equation 5 below:
[Equation 5]
/
E
x
=
1
h
a
x
x
/
G
x
y
=
1
h
a
s
s
/
V
x
y
=
-
a
y
x
a
x
x
/
V
y
x
=
-
a
x
y
a
y
y
Yao teaches calculating elastic moduli (/Ex,y), Poisson's ratios (/vx,y), and shear moduli (/Gx,y) of the multilayer material, which is the entire laminate, using the total thickness (h) and values of the set compliance matrices ([a]x,y,[b]x,y,[c]x,y,[d]x,y) of the multilayer material, which is the entire laminate as shown in Equation 5 below:
[Equation 5]
/
E
x
=
1
h
a
x
x
/
G
x
y
=
1
h
a
s
s
/
V
x
y
=
-
a
y
x
a
x
x
/
V
y
x
=
-
a
x
y
a
y
y
.
(Page 397, equations 9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Weckner to incorporate the teachings of Yao to calculate material properties one ordinary skill in the art would be motivated because it predicts the ultimate tensile strength and verify the tensile experiments (Yao, Page 393, abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGEL JAVIER CALLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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.
/A.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights