Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is a non-final First Office Action.
This action is in response to communications filed on 05/25/2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered.
Claims 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception, an abstract idea (mathematical concepts), without significantly more. However, minor amendments of the independent claims would make all claims eligible; one such example is provided.
Claims 1-4, 10-16, 19,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulter, Nolan, "Design of an Attitude Control System for a Spacecraft with Propellant Slosh Dynamics" (2018). Doctoral Dissertations and Master's Theses. 424. https://commons.erau.edu/edt/424 (“COU”) in view of Bourdelle et al. Modeling and Control of Propellant Slosh Dynamics in Observation Spacecraft with Actuators Saturations. EUCASS 2019, Jul 2019, Madrid, Spain. ⟨hal-02502662⟩ (“ BOU ”) in further view of D’Alessandro V Modelling on tank vehicle dynamics by fluid sloshing coupled simulation, Poli Milano, PhD thesis 2011 (“ALE ”)
Claims 5-8, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulter, Nolan, "Design of an Attitude Control System for a Spacecraft with Propellant Slosh Dynamics" (2018). Doctoral Dissertations and Master's Theses. 424. https://commons.erau.edu/edt/424 (“COU”) in view of Bourdelle (“ BOU ”) in further view of D’Alessandro V Modelling on tank vehicle dynamics by fluid sloshing coupled simulation (“ALE ”) in further view of US 20220374725 A Benosman (“BEN”)
Claim 9(1) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulter, Nolan, "Design of an Attitude Control System for a Spacecraft with Propellant Slosh Dynamics" (2018). Doctoral Dissertations and Master's Theses. 424. https://commons.erau.edu/edt/424 (“COU”) in view of Bourdelle (“ BOU ”) in further view of D’Alessandro V Modelling on tank vehicle dynamics by fluid sloshing coupled simulation (“ALE ”) in further view of EP 3559592 B1 Zellouf (“ZEL”)
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/25/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Notations, Abbreviations and Conventions used.
The number in the parenthesis, following next to a claim number, when used, is the number of the parent claim.
The following abbreviations are used:
BRI = Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
POSITA = Person of Ordinary Skill in The Art
101 - 35 USC § 101
102 or 103 = 35 USC § 102 or 335 USC § 103
(S1)/(S2A1)/(S2A2) (S2B) = Steps 1, 2AProng , 2AProng2, and 2B of the multi-step eligibility analysis in the Alice/Mayo framework
WURC = Well Understood, Routine, Conventional
{ } text from the reference
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims, as drafted recite for both claim 10 and 11 “the controller of claim 11”. This is believed to be a typo and “the controller of claim 1”
and it will be interpreted as such. Appropriate correction is required.
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 directed to an ineligible judicial exception.
Claims are analyzed under the Alice/Mayo framework to determine whether the claims are directed to an ineligible judicial exception. Recitation of judicial exceptions are highlighted in bold font. Paraphrased language, shown in italics, is used to simplify reference. Claims with similar limitations, although not verbatim identical, that share the same rationale under Alice/Mayo steps Step 1 (S1) and Steps 2 Prongs A1, A2 and B (S2A1, S2A2, S2B) are grouped. The analysis is performed on a representative claim of each group. An additional analysis is performed if any claims in the group includes additional limitations.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception (abstract idea, mathematical concept) without significantly more.
(S1) Prima facie, claims 1-20 are each directed to a statutory category of invention: process (Claims 13-18 directed to a method), machine (claims 1-12 directed to a controller) and manufacture (claims 19-20 directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (NT-CRM).
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
Regarding claims 1, 13, 19
(S2A1)
Claim 1, representative for claims 13, 19, recites recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] collect a feedback signal indicative of a state of the system;
[B] determine a control command to an actuator of the system at a current control step by solving an optimal control problem related to changing the state of the system according to a control objective subject to a heterogenous model of dynamics of the system including a model of dynamics of the solid-state matter mutually coupled with a model of dynamics of the volume of fluid in the container, wherein the model of dynamics of the volume of fluid estimates a shape of the volume of fluid caused by the motion of the container in response to execution of the control command at the current control step, and wherein the model of dynamics of the solid-state matter includes a center of mass of the volume of fluid within the container dependent on the shape of the volume of fluid at the current control step; and
[C] submit the control command to the actuator of the system to change the state of the system.
In broadest reasonable interpretation and in view of the specification the combination of abstract ideas in the bolded limitations claim recites a process aimed at: “determine a control by solving an optimal control problem of coupled dynamics of a fluid in a container based on estimates of center of mass of volume of fluid which depends on its volume shape ”.
This process covers performance of limitations expressing mathematical concepts like volume shape estimation, estimate center of mass, and solving the equations of optimal control. These are Mathematical Concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection I) ).
Accordingly, claims 1, 13, 19 recite an abstract idea.
(S2A2)
The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the claims only amount to Mere Instructions to Apply the judicial Exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)), an Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), or to a general link to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h).
The additional elements ”processor” and “memory” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, which is equivalent to instructions to implement the abstract idea “by a computer” or “on a computer” (used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f))
The additional claim elements also recite: collect feedback signal [A], and submit the control command [C]. When considered individually, each amounts to nothing more than “Insignificant Extra-Solution (Pre-Solution and/or Post-Solution) Activity”, i.e. activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claims. Specifically, the claim elements are considered either pre-solution activity because they are mere gathering or pre-processing data/information in conjunction with the abstract idea, or post-solution activity because they are mere outputting or post-processing results from executing the abstract idea (see MPEP §2106.05(d); which the courts have identified did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements, taken individually or in combination, fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application when evaluated using the considerations in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h) because these do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, nor do they effect an improvement to any technology or technical field. Therefore, the claim remains directed to a judicial exception.
(S2B) Claims do not include additional elements, which individually or in combination amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As analyzed in step S2A2 the additional elements recite Mere Instructions to Apply the judicial Exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)), and the Insignificant Extra (Pre-Solution and/or Post-Solution) Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), which for situations substantially similar to those here, these additional elements, including data gathering, data manipulation, and data transmission, data outputting recited at high level of generality were found by the courts to be Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)).
When considered as a whole, with additional elements in an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim only amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and Insignificant Extra Activities. Additional elements elaborate on the identified abstract idea but do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing about the computing environment or the additional steps that is significant or meaningful to the underlying judicial exception because the identified abstract idea could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information. There is no inventive concept beyond the judicial exception, and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, it is concluded that claims 1, 13, 19 are ineligible.
To make the claims eligible, amendments could either remove recitation of abstract ideas, or provide additional elements that would integrate the claims in a practical application or/and provide significantly more. An example of a simple amendment is to separate [C] limitation, “submit the control command to the actuator of the system to change the state of the system.” into two parts, making the last part an active step, to recite “change the state of the system”
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Dependent Claims further recite a follows:
9(1)
wherein the processor is further configured to: collect measurements of the volume of fluid in the container and measurements of occupancy of fluid at a plurality of points in the container; and execute a probabilistic filter tracking the shape of the volume of fluid using a prediction model subject to process noise and a measurement model subject to measurement noise, wherein the prediction model simulates Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) of the volume of fluid with motion of the container as boundary conditions to predict a distribution of the shape of the volume of fluid, and wherein the measurement model updates the predicted distribution based on the measurements of occupancy of fluid.
12(1)
wherein the system is a spacecraft including a container, and wherein the container includes fuel for the spacecraft, and wherein the processor is further configured to: determine control commands to one or more actuators of the spacecraft by solving an optimal control problem of reaching a desired state of the spacecraft, wherein the optimal control problem is subject to the heterogenous model; and
submit the control commands to the one or more actuators of the spacecraft to move the spacecraft to the desired state.
Each of these claims continues to recite, and further reinforce/elaborate on the abstract idea in the parent claim. The analysis for each of them is similar to that of the parent claim. The bolded claim elements recite mental processes. The additional elements further recited by the claim are of the same nature as those identified in the parent claim, specifically Insignificant Extra (Pre-Solution and/or Post-Solution) Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) limitations of data gathering, data manipulation, and data transmission, data outputting recited at high level of generality were found by the courts to be Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)). data manipulation and mere instructions to apply an exception ((MPEP 2106.05(f) ).
For each of the above claims, when considered individually or in combination, the additional elements do not provide any specific improvements and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. Therefore, these claim elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is thus directed to a judicial exception.
For each of the above claims, when considered individually and in combination, the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept beyond the judicial exception, and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Claims 9, 12 are thus found ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Additional Dependent Claims further recite:
2(1), 14(13), 20(18)
wherein the shape of the volume of fluid is determined by a profile of an interface between the volume of fluid estimated for the current control step and the remaining volume in the container.
3(2), 15(14)
wherein the profile of the interface is estimated using principles of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD).
4(1), 16(13)
wherein the model of dynamics of the fluid simulates Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) of the volume of fluid in the container.
5(4), 17(16)
wherein the model of dynamics of the fluid simulates CFD of the volume of fluid using a reduced-order model approximating a full CFD model.
6(5), 18(17)
wherein the full CFD model is a PDE model, and the degree of the reduced-order model is less than the degree of the PDE model.
7(5)
wherein the reduced-order model is based on one or more parametric physics models that model dynamics of the fluid.
8(5)
wherein the reduced-order model is obtained by computing a set of modes based on Dynamic Mode Decomposition (DMD), wherein each mode is associated with temporal features and a correlated spatial activity.
10(1) not 10(11)
wherein the measurements of the volume of fluid in the container and the measurements of occupancy of fluid at the plurality of points in the container are collected from one or more sensors associated with the container.
11(1) not 11(11)
wherein the probabilistic filter is a Kalman filter.
These further elements in the dependent claims only limit other claim elements, like shape, profile, model, measurements and filter, by describing their nature, structure and/or content, thus further limiting the form of the transactions that are acted upon in the parent claim. The nature, form or structure of these elements themselves do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed.
Moreover, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the further elements in these dependents claims, respectively, do not perform any claimed method steps These cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea from a judicial exception into an eligible application, because they do not represent significantly more. In summary, in none of the claims there is an inventive concept beyond the judicial exception, and thus, when each of these claims is considered as a whole, it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, claims 2-8, 10, 11, 14-18, 20 are deemed ineligible.
As noted in the analysis of independent claims, making all claims eligible involves simple amendments, e.g. transforming what is not a data output, without an actual action that changes a system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims that share substantially similar limitations (even though not verbatim) are grouped and analyzed together; the analysis is done on the claim with most comprehensive limitations. The parenthesis following a claim number indicates the parent claim.
Claims -1-4, 10-16, 19,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulter, Nolan, "Design of an Attitude Control System for a Spacecraft with Propellant Slosh Dynamics" (2018). Doctoral Dissertations and Master's Theses. 424. https://commons.erau.edu/edt/424 (“COU”) in view of Bourdelle (“ BOU ”) in further view of D’Alessandro V Modelling on tank vehicle dynamics by fluid sloshing coupled simulation (“ALE ”)
Regarding Claim(s) 1, 13, 19 COU discloses
collect a feedback signal indicative of a state of the system; {see at least p. 18 Therefore, the updated states pass through a Kalman state observer to estimate the spacecraft and fuel slosh dynamics before the sensors update the measurements and begin the cycle again. The only difference for the LQR is the direct state feedback from the spacecraft plant.; Fig 4 X~ (estimated states)}
determine a control command to an actuator of the system at a current control step by solving an optimal control problem related to changing the state of the system according to a control objective subject to a heterogenous model of dynamics of the system including a model of dynamics of the solid-state matter mutually coupled with a model of dynamics of the volume of fluid in the container, {p19 Optimal control allows for maximum performance to be obtained given system constraints and uncertainties. Since the spacecraft with fuel slosh model is linearized, the Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) tracking controller was chosen as the baseline architecture for this comparison investigation.; p23 (bottom) The integral feedback provides an optimal control technique that will regulate the state variable to the desired reference without steady state error despite disturbances to the system.; p72 The nonlinear simulation environment utilizes the full nonlinear equations derived in Chapter 2 for the spacecraft with propellant slosh.; The MRAC based ACS is capable of achieving the control objective and suppressing the fuel slosh dynamics;p8 Several assumptions simplify the complex and highly coupled dynamics of a rigid spacecraft body and the liquid slosh creating an approximate nonlinear model. The equations of motion are presented for the underactuated, multi-body spacecraft with propellant slosh dynamics. The model utilizes a two body mass-spring analogy to capture the two lowest frequency slosh modes.}
submit the control command to the actuator of the system to change the state of the system. { p5 Also implemented in the nonlinear model, an attitude control thruster actuator model is developed to represent a more realistic control system on a spacecraft. The nonlinear system with the developed actuator model are designed to test each ACS ability to achieve the control objective given nonlinearities and limitations on the control input; p 38 4.3.1. Spacecraft Thruster Actuator Model }
COU does not teach, however BOU teaches
wherein the model of dynamics of the volume of fluid estimates a shape of the volume of fluid caused by the motion of the container in response to execution of the control command at the current control step, and { behavior is described by a mechanical system such as spring-mass, pendulum [13], free-mass or mass constrained on a surface [14, 15].; p2 Surface tension arises from the fluid molecular interactions, it creates and maintains the interface between two media. In microgravity, slosh dynamics becomes more complex as surface tension effects cannot be neglected in front of gravity [6]. Therefore many researches have been conducted in order to understand sloshing, particularly in space [7, 8]... In-situ experiments dedicated to the study of sloshing were led, such as Sloshsat-FLEVO (ESA), Spheres (NASA) and Fluidics (ESA). The flight data have been used to adjust and validate CFD models}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of COU and BOU. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of obtaining a better estimate of the behavior of fluid at that moment.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over COU in view of BOU.
COU/BOU does not teach, however ALE teaches
wherein the model of dynamics of the solid-state matter includes a center of mass of the volume of fluid within the container dependent on the shape of the volume of fluid at the current control step; and {p14 last paraIn this method, the location of the center of mass of the liquid cargo under different excitation is speci ed. It can be shown that the free liquid surface can be replaced by a straight line or a at surface.}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of COU/BOU. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to use center of mass in equations. Simplifying the analysis compared to analysis of entire volume of fluid.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over COU/BOU in view of ALE.
Regarding claim 10(1) COU/BOU/ALE teaches the limitations of the parent claim. COU further teaches
wherein the measurements of the volume of fluid in the container and the measurements of occupancy of fluid at the plurality of points in the container are collected from one or more sensors associated with the container. {COU p18 Therefore, the updated states pass through a Kalman state observer to estimate the spacecraft and fuel slosh dynamics before the sensors update the measurements and begin the cycle again. Fig 4
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
}
Regarding claim 11(1) COU/BOU/ALE teach the limitations of the parent claim. COU further discloses
wherein the probabilistic filter is a Kalman filter. { COU p18 Therefore, the updated states pass through a Kalman state observer to estimate the spacecraft and fuel slosh dynamics before the sensors update the measurements and begin the cycle again ; p89 I utilizess the Kalman Filter to estimate the fuel slosh states and achieves the desired control objectives while suppressing the fuel slosh motion in the nonlinear spacecraft model.}
Regarding claim 12(1) COU/BOU/ALE teach the limitations of the parent claim. COU further discloses
wherein the system is a spacecraft including a container, and wherein the container includes fuel for the spacecraft, and wherein the processor is further configured to: determine control commands to one or more actuators of the spacecraft by solving an optimal control problem of reaching a desired state of the spacecraft, wherein the optimal control problem is subject to the heterogenous model; and {Title: Design of an Attitude Control System for a Spacecraft with Propellant Slosh Dynamics; p1. Fuel slosh develops from the natural dynamics of a free liquid surface inside of a container, which can cause sporadic movements to partially filled liquid containers. As a spacecraft performs rotational and translational maneuvers, free moving propellant in a partially filled tank can; p4 This thesis provides a comparison of optimal and adaptive control architectures for a spacecraft with propellant slosh dynamics; Several assumptions simplify the complex and highly coupled dynamics of a rigid spacecraft body and the liquid slosh creating an approximate nonlinear model. The equations of motion are presented for the underactuated, multi-body spacecraft with propellant slosh dynamics. The model utilizes a two body mass-spring analogy to capture the two lowest frequency slosh modes. }
submit the control commands to the one or more actuators of the spacecraft to move the spacecraft to the desired state. {p5 Also implemented in the nonlinear model, an attitude control thruster actuator model is developed to represent a more realistic control system on a spacecraft. The nonlinear system with the developed actuator model are designed to test each ACS ability to achieve the control objective given nonlinearities and limitations on the control input; p 38 4.3.1. Spacecraft Thruster Actuator Model }
Regarding claims 2(1), 14(13), 20(18) COU/BOU/ALE teaches the limitations of the parent claim.
ALE further teaches
wherein the shape of the volume of fluid is determined by a profile of an interface between the volume of fluid estimated for the current control step and the remaining volume in the container. {
The CFD model is based on the Navier-Stokes equations i p. 14. Quasi-static model is a conventional method for prediction of steady-state position of liquid free surface in moving containers. In this method, the location of the center of mass of the liquid cargo under different excitation is specified. It can be shown that the free liquid surface can be replaced by a straight line or a flat surface. 3.5 CFD model and validation p 108
} the profile of an interface between the volume of fluid estimated for the current control step and the remaining volume in the container is interpreted as the surface of the liquid
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of COU/BOU/ALE with further teaching of ALE. One would have been motivated to do so to have the advantage of correct estimation which depends on surface/contour shape of remaining liquid.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over COU/BOU/ALE
Regarding claims 3(2), 15(14) COU/BOU/ALE teaches the limitations of the parent claim.
ALE further teaches
wherein the profile of the interface is estimated using principles of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). { Abstract p3 in fact the relevant studies reported in literature are limited either in the development of methodologies for predicting the liquid slosh in various containers or in the analysis of vehicle stability based upon simplified models of liquid cargo motion without sufficient consideration of the dynamic slosh effect, such as quasi-static fluid motion or pendulum analogy technique. In this thesis, a computational fluid dynamics slosh model is coupled with a lumped truck model. The CFD model is based on the Navier-Stokes equations i p. 14. Quasi-static model is a conventional method for prediction of steady-state position of liquid free surface in moving containers. In this method, the location of the center of mass of the liquid cargo under different excitation is specified. It can be shown that the free liquid surface can be replaced by a straight line or a flat surface. 3.5 CFD model and validation p 108
}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of COU/BOU/ALE with further teaching of ALE. One would have been motivated to do so to have the advantage of using well-establish methods of calculation for fluids.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over COU/BOU/ALE
Regarding claims 4(1), 16(13) COU/BOU/ALE teaches the limitations of the parent claim.
ALE further teaches
wherein the model of dynamics of the fluid simulates Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) of the volume of fluid in the container. {ALE: Abstract p3 in fact the relevant studies reported in literature are limited either in the development of methodologies for predicting the liquid slosh in various containers or in the analysis of vehicle stability based upon simplified models of liquid cargo motion without suficient consideration of the dynamic slosh effect, such as quasi-static fluid motion or pendulum analogy technique. In this thesis, a computational fluid dynamics slosh model is coupled with a lumped truck model. The CFD model is based on the Navier-Stokes equations incorporating the Volume Of Fluid (VOF) technique to model two immiscible fluids by solving a single set of momentum equations and tracking the volume fraction of each of the fluids throughout the domain and the Moving Mesh (MM)
technique to specify the motion of the tank by providing the linear and angular velocities at every time step.}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of COU/BOU/ALE with further teaching of ALE. One would have been motivated to do so to have the advantage of using well-establish methods of calculation for fluids.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over COU/BOU/ALE
Claims 5-8 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulter, Nolan, "Design of an Attitude Control System for a Spacecraft with Propellant Slosh Dynamics" (2018). Doctoral Dissertations and Master's Theses. 424. https://commons.erau.edu/edt/424 (“COU”) in view of Bourdelle (“ BOU ”) in further view of D’Alessandro V Modelling on tank vehicle dynamics by fluid sloshing coupled simulation (“ALE ”) in further view of US 20220374725 A Benosman (“BEN”)
Regarding claims 5(4), 17(16) COU/BOU/ALE teaches the limitations of the parent claim.
COU/BOU/ALE does not teach however BEN teaches
wherein the model of dynamics of the fluid simulates CFD of the volume of fluid using a reduced-order model approximating a full CFD model. { 0088] Solutions to the PDE model (1) can be approximated in a finite dimensional subspace Z.sup.n ⊂ Z through expensive numerical discretization, which can be impractical for real-time applications such as prediction and control. In many systems, including fluid flows, solutions of the PDE may be well-approximated using only a few basis functions. In this paper we use DMD to construct these model reduction basis functions. [0089] DMD is a data-driven technique that has been widely used in the fluid dynamics community to extract spatio-temporal modes from complex and dynamically evolving data-sets.
PNG
media_image2.png
449
616
media_image2.png
Greyscale
}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of COU/BOU/ALE with teaching of BEN. One would have been motivated to do so to have the advantage of more rapid calculations to allow a real-time response to the spacecraft.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over COU/BOU/ALE/BEN
Regarding claim 6(5), 18(17) COU/BOU/ALE/BEN teaches the limitations of the parent claim.
COU/BOU/ALE does not teach however BEN teaches
wherein the full CFD model is a PDE model, and the degree of the reduced-order model is less than the degree of the PDE model. { [0009] For instance, problems in physics and engineering requiring the repeated simulation of partial differential equations (PDEs) with a large number of parameters are ubiquitous. Such problems appear in the fields of control, optimization, and uncertainty quantification, where solving PDE models are often too time-consuming. The use of reduced-order models (ROMs), i.e., reducing PDE model to a system of finite-dimensional ordinary differential equations (ODEs), in control and optimization has led to practical solutions for extremely challenging systems, such as control of thermo-fluidic systems, e.g. HVAC systems, and windfarms, among others. [0089] DMD is a data-driven technique that has been widely used in the fluid dynamics community to extract spatio-temporal modes from complex and dynamically evolving data-sets.
}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of COU/BOU/ALE with teaching of BEN. One would have been motivated to do so to have the advantage of more rapid calculations to allow a real-time response to the spacecraft and to use a proven method to do so with less equations.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over COU/BOU/ALE/BEN
Regarding claim 7(5) COU/BOU/ALE/BEN teaches the limitations of the parent claim. BEN further teaches
wherein the reduced-order model is based on one or more parametric physics models that model dynamics of the fluid. {[0088] in many systems, including fluid flows, solutions of the PDE may be well-approximated using only a few basis functions. In this paper we use DMD to construct these model reduction basis functions.[0089] DMD is a data-driven technique that has been widely used in the fluid dynamics community to extract spatio-temporal modes from complex and dynamically evolving data-sets.
}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of COU/BOU/ALE/BEN with further teaching of BEN. One would have been motivated to do so to have the advantage of using the correct model for the fluid dynamics depending on the fluid..
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over COU/BOU/ALE/BEN
Regarding claim 8(5) COU/BOU/ALE/BEN teaches the limitations of the parent claim. BEN further teaches
wherein the reduced-order model is obtained by computing a set of modes based on Dynamic Mode Decomposition (DMD), wherein each mode is associated with temporal features and a correlated spatial activity. { [0009] For instance, problems in physics and engineering requiring the repeated simulation of partial differential equations (PDEs) with a large number of parameters are ubiquitous. Such problems appear in the fields of control, optimization, and uncertainty quantification, where solving PDE models are often too time-consuming. The use of reduced-order models (ROMs), i.e., reducing PDE model to a system of finite-dimensional ordinary differential equations (ODEs), in control and optimization has led to practical solutions for extremely challenging systems, such as control of thermo-fluidic systems, e.g. HVAC systems, and windfarms, among others. [0066] In some embodiments of this invention, represented in FIG. 2, the data-driven ROM 165, is obtained by using a dynamic mode decomposition (DMD) model 150, to which a robust closure model 250 is added to produce a robust DMD-based reduced order model 165. [0089] DMD is a data-driven technique that has been widely used in the fluid dynamics community to extract spatio-temporal modes from complex and dynamically evolving data-sets
}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of COU/BOU/ALE/BEN with further teaching of BEN. One would have been motivated to do so to have the advantage of using data-driven technique that has been widely used in the fluid dynamics community to extract spatio-temporal modes from complex spatio-temporal data sets.Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over COU/BOU/ALE/BEN
Claim 9(1) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulter, Nolan, "Design of an Attitude Control System for a Spacecraft with Propellant Slosh Dynamics" (2018). Doctoral Dissertations and Master's Theses. 424. https://commons.erau.edu/edt/424 (“COU”) in view of Bourdelle (“ BOU ”) in further view of D’Alessandro V Modelling on tank vehicle dynamics by fluid sloshing coupled simulation (“ALE ”) in further view of EP 3559592 B1 Zellouf (“ZEL”)
Regarding claim 9(1) COU/BOU/ALE teaches the limitations of the parent claim. COU further teaches
execute a probabilistic filter tracking the shape of the volume of fluid using a prediction model subject to process noise and a measurement model subject to measurement noise, { COU p18 Therefore, the updated states pass through a Kalman state observer to estimate the spacecraft and fuel slosh dynamics before the sensors update the measurements and begin the cycle again.p21 where v(t) and w(t) are the process and measurement noises respectively. p22 For the Kalman Estimator, Q and R are weight matrices that can be used as parameters for “tuning” the performance of the estimator. This requires careful consideration of their values and manipulated to produce the desired response. The Kalman Filter gain, L(t), is }
ALE further teaches
wherein the prediction model simulates Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) of the volume of fluid with motion of the container as boundary conditions to predict a distribution of the shape of the volume of fluid, and wherein the measurement model updates the predicted distribution based on the measurements of occupancy of fluid. {ALE p15 According to the lateral acceleration in the roll plane or longitudinal acceleration in the pitch plane, the free liquid surface location is calculated. Then, effect of steady state cargo load shift on directional dynamics performance of the vehicles is analyzed p24 The boundary condition at the tank wall; p108 CFD model and validation; p154 The effect of sloshing is related to the amount of liquid contained and to the ratio between volume taken by the fluid and the free volume inside the tank
}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of COU/BOU/ALE with further teaching of ALE. One would have been motivated to do tp obtain distribution of fluid indicating the volume of fluid from which shape and center of mass can be computed to analyze slosh.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over COU/BOU/ALE.
COU/BOU/ALE does not teach however ZEL teaches
wherein the processor is further configured to: collect measurements of the volume of fluid in the container and measurements of occupancy of fluid at a plurality of points in the container; and { ZEL: DE 43 39 441 A1 describes a system for determining the volume of a liquid in a tank comprising a laser scanner making it possible to measure the topography of the surface of the liquid and means for determining the volume of liquid from the measured topography values.; According to a second aspect described in claim 1, the present invention relates to a removable device for determining the value of at least one local deformation parameter of a liquid storage tank, such as sloshing of the liquid in the tank, a volume of liquid present in the tank or a deformation of the tank for example, to form a system which is the subject of the present invention which comprises: …… a means for determining a topography of at least one wall of the tank as a function of at least one detected relief and a means for determining the value of each local deformation parameter as a function of the determined topography.
}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of COU/BOU/ALE with further teaching of ALE. One would have been motivated to do so to have the advantage of simulations based on measurements to obtain better estimates of the shape of volume of liquid.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over COU/BOU/ALE/ZEL.
Prior art made of record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Coulter et al Comparison of Optimal and Bioinspired Adaptive Control Laws for Spacecraft Sloshing Dynamics, JOURNAL OF SPACECRAFT AND ROCKETS, Vol. 57, No. 1, January–February 2020
Anthony Bourdelle, Jean-Marc Biannic, Burlion Laurent, Hélène Evain, Christelle Pittet, et al.. Modeling and Control of Propellant Slosh Dynamics in Observation Spacecraft with Actuators Saturations. EUCASS 2019, Jul 2019, Madrid, Spain. ⟨hal-02502662⟩
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIAN STOICA whose telephone number is (571) 272-3428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. -5 p.m. PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights