DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-11 are pending and presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The representative claim 1 recites:
A method for measuring a super-large deformation of a plane, comprising the steps of
arranging enough mark points for an image recognition on a plane of a test piece to be measured;
recognizing and recording positions of two-dimensional Cartesian coordinates of each mark point on the plane of the test piece to be measured before and after each stretching; and
determining a deformation gradient of each mark point and deformation measurement parameters of each mark point by using a numerical method,
wherein the deformation measurement parameters comprise: at least one of an elongation tensor matrix and a finite strain tensor matrix; and
at least one selected from the group consisting of an orthogonal tensor matrix, an angular tensor matrix, a rotation angle, and a curvature.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitation in the claim is maybe only: arranging enough mark points for an image recognition on a plane of a test piece to be measured. As indicated above, this limitation is shown as abstract concepts something that can be treated as a mental processes. Alternatively, it could also be seen as an addition elements that maybe be done physically. However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., arrangement of mark points used for measuring a test piece) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the additional limitation recited at a high level of generality. Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Cui et al. CN 111192300 A (hereinafter, Cui), (Fig. 3), and Lu et al. “Deformation Measurements by Digital Image Correlation: Implementation of a Second-order Displacement Gradient”, (hereinafter, Lu), (Fig. 1). Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-11, add further details of the identified abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
7. Claim 1 recites the limitation “arranging enough mark points for an image recognition on a plane of a test piece to be measured.” However, the claim language “enough mark points” is unclear. The term "enough" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "enough" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction/explanation is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 of this title, 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.
9. Claims 1-3 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al. CN 111192300 A (hereinafter, Cui), in view of Liang et al. “Multiscale modelling of large deformation in geomechanics”, March 2019 (hereinafter, Liang).
10. Regarding claim 1, Cui discloses a method for measuring a super-large deformation of a plane, comprising
the steps of arranging enough mark points for an image recognition on a plane of a test piece to be measured ([0025], [0037]: Figure 3 is a schematic diagram of the arrangement of marker points in the experiment provided… (a) is the initial position, and (b) is after local deformation and displacement);
recognizing and recording positions of two-dimensional Cartesian coordinates of each mark point on the plane of the test piece to be measured before and after each stretching ([0039]-[0040], [0043], [0095]: the topological information represents the positional relationship between neighboring points in the sparse marker point set, and the feature description represents the relative positional relationship and distance between neighboring points in the sparse marker point set. A neighboring point can be understood as an adjacent point in the sparse marker point set, or a point where the straight-line distance between two points is within a preset value... Based on the feature description results, establish the correspondence between the marker points before and after deformation…the KD tree is a k (k≥2) dimensional binary index tree used to organize the set of points in k dimensional space for fast searching); and
determining a deformation gradient of each mark point and deformation measurement parameters of each mark point by using a numerical method ([0039], [0046], [0095], [0113]).
Cui does not disclose:
wherein the deformation measurement parameters comprise: at least one of an elongation tensor matrix and a finite strain tensor matrix; and at least one selected from the group consisting of an orthogonal tensor matrix, an angular tensor matrix, a rotation angle, and a curvature.
However, Liang discloses:
wherein the deformation measurement parameters comprise: at least one of an elongation tensor matrix and a finite strain tensor matrix (pages 6-7, Equations 36-40: consider the following decomposition of the deformation gradient F = R.U, where U denotes the right stretch tensor (i.e., an elongation tensor matrix) which is symmetric and positive definite, and R is the orthogonal rotation tensor which can be related to the rotation angle Ө according to….
Considering the following relationship:
FT. F = (R. U)T. (R. U) = UT.RT. R . U = UT. U = U. U
we can firstly determine U and R by the following equations, and then use Equation 37 to obtain the rotation angle Ө.
U = (FT.F)1/2
R = F. U-1); and
at least one selected from the group consisting of an orthogonal tensor matrix, an angular tensor matrix, a rotation angle, and a curvature (pages 6-7, Equations 36-40: consider the following decomposition of the deformation gradient F = R.U, where U denotes the right stretch tensor which is symmetric and positive definite, and R is the orthogonal rotation tensor (i.e., an orthogonal tensor matrix) which can be related to the rotation angle Ө).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Cui to use wherein the deformation measurement parameters comprise: at least one of an elongation tensor matrix and a finite strain tensor matrix; and at least one selected from the group consisting of an orthogonal tensor matrix, an angular tensor matrix, a rotation angle, and a curvature as taught by Liang. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to apply the deformation gradient methodology of the deformation material system as known in the art and as taught by Liang in a deformation measurement system such as that of Cui, thereby, determining the extent to which the test piece deforms (Liang, pages 6-7).
11. Regarding claim 2, The method according to claim 1, wherein the curvature of one mark point is calculated according to a variation of the rotation angle of an adjacent mark point (Examiner’s Note: Claim 1 listed one or more deformation measurement parameters (i.e., an orthogonal tensor matrix, an angular tensor matrix, a rotation angle, and a curvature), and require selecting one of the deformation measurement parameters. For examination purpose, the Examiner select one from the alternative lists, that is the limitation “an orthogonal tensor matrix” as shown above. However, claim 2 limitation “wherein the curvature of one mark point is calculated according to a variation of the rotation angle of an adjacent mark point” is drawn from one of the alternative deformation measurement parameters, that is the limitation “a curvature” which was not selected for examination. Therefore, claim 2 limitation “wherein the curvature of one mark point is calculated according to a variation of the rotation angle of an adjacent mark point” does not distinguish patentability over the prior art applied).
12. Regarding claim 3, Cui in view of Liang disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Cui further discloses wherein a deformation gradient matrix [F] of each mark point is calculated, if a forward difference method is used, an instance is shown as follows: any mark point is taken as P1, an adjacent mark point of a mark point in an X-axis direction is P2, an adjacent mark point in a Y-axis direction is P4, the two-dimensional Cartesian coordinates before deformation are (X1, Y1), (X2, Y2) and (X4, Y4) respectively, for the three mark points (P1, P2, and P4), the two-dimensional Cartesian coordinates after deformation are (x1, y1), (x2, y2) and (x4, y4) respectively([0039]-[0040], [0043], [0046]: the topological information represents the positional relationship between neighboring points in the sparse marker point set, and the feature description represents the relative positional relationship and distance between neighboring points in the sparse marker point set. A neighboring point can be understood as an adjacent point in the sparse marker point set, or a point where the straight-line distance between two points is within a preset value... Based on the feature description results, establish the correspondence between the marker points before and after deformation…the KD tree is a k (k≥2) dimensional binary index tree used to organize the set of points in k dimensional space for fast searching).
Further, Liang discloses deformation gradient matrix (pages 6-7, Equations 36-40: consider the following decomposition of the deformation gradient F = R.U, where U denotes the right stretch tensor which is symmetric and positive definite, and R is the orthogonal rotation tensor which can be related to the rotation angle Ө ….Considering the following relationship:
FT. F = (R. U)T. (R. U) = UT.RT. R . U = UT. U = U. U
we can firstly determine U and R by the following equations, and then use Equation 37 to obtain the rotation angle Ө.
U = (FT.F)1/2
R = F. U-1).
Cui in view of Liang does not disclose the deformation gradient matrix of the mark point P1 is:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, defining the deformation gradient matrix of the mark point P1 as [F1]...would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of Cui in view of Liang as disclosed above.
13. Regarding claim 5, The method according to claim 1, wherein formulas of [H]=ln[U] [h]=ln[V] are configured for determining the finite strain tensor matrix of each mark point, comprising a right strain tensor matrix [H] and a left strain tensor matrix [h]
(Examiner’s Note: Claim 1 listed one or more deformation measurement parameters (i.e., an elongation tensor matrix and finite strain tensor matrix), and require selecting one of the deformation measurement parameters. For examination purpose, the Examiner select one from the alternative lists, that is the limitation “an elongation tensor matrix” as shown above. However, claim 5 limitation is drawn from one of the alternative deformation measurement parameters, that is the limitation “finite strain tensor matrix” which was not selected for examination. Therefore, claim 5 limitation “wherein formulas of [H]=ln[U] [h]=ln[V] are configured for determining the finite strain tensor matrix of each mark point, comprising a right strain tensor matrix [H] and a left strain tensor matrix [h]” does not distinguish patentability over the prior art applied).
14. Regarding claim 6, Cui in view of Liang disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Cui further discloses a deformation gradient matrix of each mark point ([0039]-[0040], [0043], [0046]: the topological information represents the positional relationship between neighboring points in the sparse marker point set, and the feature description represents the relative positional relationship and distance between neighboring points in the sparse marker point set. A neighboring point can be understood as an adjacent point in the sparse marker point set, or a point where the straight-line distance between two points is within a preset value... Based on the feature description results, establish the correspondence between the marker points before and after deformation…the KD tree is a k (k≥2) dimensional binary index tree used to organize the set of points in k dimensional space for fast searching).
Cui does not disclose:
wherein a formula of [R]=[F].[U]-1 is configured for determining the orthogonal tensor matrix [R] of each mark point.
However, Liang discloses:
wherein a formula of [R]=[F].[U]-1 is configured for determining the orthogonal tensor matrix [R] of each mark point (pages 6-7, Equations 36-40: consider the following decomposition of the deformation gradient F = R.U, where U denotes the right stretch tensor which is symmetric and positive definite, and R is the orthogonal rotation tensor which can be related to the rotation angle Ө according to….
we can firstly determine U and R by the following equations, and then use Equation 37 to obtain the rotation angle Ө.
U = (FT.F)1/2
R = F. U-1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Cui to use wherein a formula of [R]=[F].[U]-1 is configured for determining the orthogonal tensor matrix [R] of each mark point as taught by Liang. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to apply the deformation gradient methodology of the deformation material system as known in the art and as taught by Liang in a deformation measurement system such as that of Cui, thereby, determining the extent to which the test piece deforms (Liang, pages 6-7).
15. Regarding claim 7, The method according to claim 1, wherein a formula of [A]=ln[R]=
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is configured for determining the angular tensor matrix [A] of each mark point, and a rotation angle value of each mark point is determined as α=−A12 (Examiner’s Note: Claim 1 listed one or more deformation measurement parameters (i.e., an orthogonal tensor matrix, an angular tensor matrix, a rotation angle, and a curvature), and require selecting one of the deformation measurement parameters. For examination purpose, the Examiner select one from the alternative lists, that is the limitation “an orthogonal tensor matrix” as shown above. However, claim 7 limitation is drawn from one of the alternative deformation measurement parameters, that is the limitation “an angular tensor matrix” which was not selected for examination. Therefore, claim 7 limitation “wherein a formula of [A]=ln[R]= … is configured for determining the angular tensor matrix [A] of each mark point, and a rotation angle value of each mark point is determined as α=−A12” does not distinguish patentability over the prior art applied).
16. Regarding claim 8, The method according to claim 2, wherein components of the curvature C of mark point P1 are C11 and C12 respectively, specific calculations are as follows: C11=α2-α1/X2-X1, C12=α4-α1/Y4-Y1, and α1, α2 and α4 are the rotation angles of mark points P1, P2 and P4 respectively (Examiner’s Note: Claim 1 listed one or more deformation measurement parameters (i.e., an orthogonal tensor matrix, an angular tensor matrix, a rotation angle, and a curvature), and require selecting one of the deformation measurement parameters. For examination purpose, the Examiner select one from the alternative lists, that is the limitation “an orthogonal tensor matrix” as shown above. However, claim 8 limitation is drawn from one of the alternative deformation measurement parameters, that is the limitation “a curvature” which was not selected for examination. Therefore, claim 8 limitation “wherein components of the curvature C of mark point P1 are C11 and C12 respectively, specific calculations are as follows: C11=α2-α1/X2-X1, C12=α4-α1/Y4-Y1, and α1, α2 and α4 are the rotation angles of mark points P1, P2 and P4 respectively” does not distinguish patentability over the prior art applied).
17. Regarding claim 9, Cui in view of Liang disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Cui further discloses wherein all the mark points are uniformly distributed on one part or all parts of the plane to be measured ([0036]-[0037], Fig. 3).
18. Regarding claim 10, Cui in view of Liang disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Cui further discloses the step of performing a pre-stretching operation on the plane to be measured in a natural state to obtain a plane to be measured in a tensioned state as a whole in a stretching direction, wherein coordinate positions of mark points on the plane to be measured in such a state serve as initial positions of the mark points ([0012]-[0013], [0025], Fig. 3).
19. Regarding claim 11, Cui in view of Liang disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Cui further discloses wherein the mark points are almost circular, and a ratio of a mark point diameter to a mark point spacing is [set] ([0037], [0095], Fig. 3: circular reflective markers that are manually placed or placed by drones or robots). Cui in view of Liang does not disclose a ratio of a mark point diameter to a mark point spacing is about 1:2 to 1:4. However, defining a ratio of a mark point diameter to a mark point spacing is about 1:2 to 1:4 would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of Cui and Liang as disclosed above.
20. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui, in view of Liang, in further view of Shen et al. “Monocular Vision Digital Image Correlation System, and the Application in Large Deformation Measurement”, May 2018 (Cited in IDS), (hereinafter, Shen).
21. Regarding claim 4, Cui in view of Liang disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Cui further discloses a deformation gradient matrix of each mark point ([0039]-[0040], [0043], [0046]: the topological information represents the positional relationship between neighboring points in the sparse marker point set, and the feature description represents the relative positional relationship and distance between neighboring points in the sparse marker point set. A neighboring point can be understood as an adjacent point in the sparse marker point set, or a point where the straight-line distance between two points is within a preset value... Based on the feature description results, establish the correspondence between the marker points before and after deformation).
Further, Liang discloses [U]=√[F]T.[F] is configured for determining a right elongation tensor matrix [U] (pages 6-7, Equation 39: consider the following decomposition of the deformation gradient F = R.U, where U denotes the right stretch tensor which is symmetric and positive definite,…U = (FT.F)1/2).
Cui in view of Liang does not disclose:
[V]=√[F].[F]T is configured for determining a left elongation tensor matrix [V] of each mark point.
However, Shen discloses:
[V]=√[F].[F]T is configured for determining a left elongation tensor matrix [V] of each mark point (page 56, Equation 6.6: V2 = F. FT).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Cui in view of Liang to use [V]=√[F].[F]T is configured for determining a left elongation tensor matrix [V] of each mark point as taught by Shen. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to apply the left elongation tensor methodology of the deformation material system as known in the art and as taught by Shen in a deformation measurement system such as that of Cui and Liang, thereby, determining the extent to which the test piece deforms in different directions with high precision (Shen, Abstract).
Conclusion
22. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, and/or paragraphs, and/or pages in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
23. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYOB HAGOS whose telephone number is (571)272-3508. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Eyob Hagos/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857