DETAILED ACTION
Claim 1 is presented for examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings received on 11 April 2023 are accepted.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “utilizing finite element analysis to solve for displacements and associated errors at an initialization point.” Errors are a comparison between an answer (here the solved displacements) and another answer assumed at least temporarily to be correct. Here, claim 1 fails to recite what the solved displacements are compared to for determination of the errors and therefore what is meant by the errors are unclear and indefinite.
Specification page 6 line 14 discloses an “ideal morphed surface.” Specification page 7 lines 22-25 state “The resulting morphing error (defined as the node location difference between the ideal Mach 3.5 surface and the morphed Mach 5 model) is then evaluated for a variety of surface thicknesses.” Accordingly, the Specification similarly requires an ideal surface in order to define what is meant by error. However, claim 1 has no corresponding recitation of any ideal surface for comparison nor any other displacement value to compare to.
Based on the above disclosure of the Specification, Examiner suggests amending claim 1 to recite in part:
utilizing finite element analysis to solve for displacements
calculating associated errors as a difference between the displacements and a desired surface at an initialization point;
The term “ideal” from Specification page 7 lines 22-25 was changed to “desired” because ideal is a relative term which the Specification fails to provide a standard for determining whether or not a surface is ideal or not.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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
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.
Step 2A is a two prong inquiry. MPEP §2106.04(II)(A). Under 2A(i), 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). Under 2A(ii), the second prong, examiners determine whether any additional limitations integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP §2106.04(d).
Claim 1 step 2A(i):
The claim(s) recite:
1. The method of designing a morphable aerodynamic surface, the method comprising the steps of:
discretizing and parameterizing a model of a morphable surface to create a function to optimize;
utilizing finite element analysis to solve for displacements and associated errors at an initialization point; and
iteratively calculating a gradient cost function, define step size and search direction, step according to defined step size and search direction, and recalculate displacements and associated errors to converge on final thickness vector.
Designing an aerodynamic surface is mental process design steps in the form of evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
Discretizing a surface to create a function corresponds to construction of a respective mathematical function. Utilizing a finite element analysis to solve for displacements at an initialization point is a recitation of an algorithmic initialization and encompasses respective mathematical operations and mental process observation.
Iteratively calculating a gradient cost function and recalculating displacements and errors to reach a convergence on a final thickness vector is further recitation of the mathematical algorithm.
When viewed overall, claim 1 recites a combination of mental process design steps and a mathematical algorithm and/or calculation recited in prose. A combination of mathematical concept abstract idea and mental processes is a combination of abstract idea which remains claim recitation directed towards an abstract idea. This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 1 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 1 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent 8,418,966 B2 Hetrick, et al. [herein “Hetrick”] in view of US patent 10,853,528 B2 Olhofer, et al. [herein “Olhofer”].
Claim 1 recites “1. The method of designing a morphable aerodynamic surface.” Hetrick title discloses “Compliant Structure Design of Varying Surface Contours.” The compliant structure corresponds with a morphable aerodynamic surface. Hetrick column 1 lines 19-20 disclose “a resilient air foil arrangement that has a variable aerodynamic configuration.”
Claim 1 further recites “the method comprising the steps of: discretizing and parameterizing a model of a morphable surface to create a function to optimize.” Hetrick column 11 lines 64-65 disclose “Given the CAD and finite element models, one can extract the key mass and stiffness values for the flap system.” A finite element model of the system is a discretized model. The key values for the system correspond to parametrization of the system.
Hetrick column 14 lines 39-48 disclose:
the Optimization Procedure Objective function, specifically:
Minimize the shape error (between the shape obtained and shape desired);
Minimize the actuator force required to cause desired shape change against external resistive load; and
Minimize the overall weight of the system Subject to various constraints such as Maximum allowable stress, buckling load, fatigue stress, minimum and maximum dimensions of the beam elements, etc.
The objective function is a function to optimize.
Claim 1 further recites “utilizing finite element analysis to solve for displacements and associated errors at an initialization point; and iteratively calculating a gradient cost function, define step size and search direction, step according to defined step size and search direction, and recalculate displacements and associated errors to converge on final thickness vector.” Hetrick column 14 lines 39-48 disclose:
the Optimization Procedure Objective function, specifically:
Minimize the shape error (between the shape obtained and shape desired);
Minimize the actuator force required to cause desired shape change against external resistive load; and
Minimize the overall weight of the system Subject to various constraints such as Maximum allowable stress, buckling load, fatigue stress, minimum and maximum dimensions of the beam elements, etc.
The objective function is a function to optimize. The shape error corresponds with an error between solved displacements and a desired displacement of the desired contour.
Hetrick column 15 lines 33-36 disclose “a standard airfoil 300 having a variable thickness surface perimeter 302 to permit "tailoring" of the perimeter stiffness to achieve a best match for a desired contour.”
Hetrick column 14 lines 49-54 disclose:
The process of design optimization then flows from function block 475 to function block 477, wherein, when the optimization process converges, cross-sections of certain beams approach zero leaving on a sub-set of beam elements necessary to meet the design specifications. This establishes the topology, size arid geometry of the compliant mechanism.
The optimization process converging implies, but does not explicitly teach an iterative calculation. Beam elements correspond with a finite element of this analysis.
Hetrick does not explicitly disclose a gradient function, step size, or search direction of the FEA optimization procedure; however, in analogous art of finite element analysis topology optimization, Olhofer column 7 lines 40-44 teaches:
The inner process is started in step S201 by starting a topology optimization on an initial design, e.g. an initial design of a product (S202). In particular, a structural analysis is performed using in particular a finite element analysis is performed in step S203.
Olhofer column 7 lines 16-22 teach:
Structures, physical objects/designs are optimized with respect to quality functions by using a process which generates update strategies replacing gradient information. Those update strategies can be applied in the same way as conventional gradient information for the iterative redistribution of material within the structure by accordingly changing the design variables.
Olhofer column 9 lines 66-67 teach “Gradient information-A direction in the search space for which the quality of the design improves.” Gradient information corresponds with a gradient functioning. The direction in the search space corresponds with a search direction.
Olhofer column 7 lines 49-55 teach:
If the convergence criterion is not fulfilled, required local information is extracted from the structural analysis. This information is used to redistribute material according to the update strategy provided by the outer process and yields a modified structure (S207). The inner loop is continued with a structural analysis of this modified structure resulting from the updated design (S208).
The update modification yielding the modified structure corresponds with a step size modification to the initial design. The convergence criteria corresponds with a convergence on a final design of the optimization.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hetrick and Olhofer. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use FEA topology optimization into the system of compliant structure design for the advantageous purpose of “conventional topology optimization approaches the gradient information.” See Olhofer column 4 lines 21-24.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 8,366,057 B2 Vos; Roelof et al.
teaches
Pressure adaptive morphing structure
US 8,678,324 B2 Hemmelgarn; Christopher Douglas et al.
Passive adaptive structures
US 9,315,259 B1 McKeon; Beverley et al.
Morphing surfaces for the control of boundary layer transition
Gamboa, P., et al. “Optimization of a Morphing Wing Based on Coupled Aerodynamic and Structural Constraints” AIA A J., vol. 47, no. 9, pp. 2087-2104 (2009)
Optimization of a morphing wing, with constraints.
Skin material, chord/span extension.
Wing structure FEM.
Drag aerodynamic optimization.
Peng, W., et al. “Analysis of Morphing Modes of Hypersonic Morphing Aircraft and Multiobjective Trajectory Optimization” IEEE Access, vol. 7, (2019)
Hypersonic multi-objective optimization of a morphing aircraft.
Heat flux, angle-of-attack, lift-to-drag ratio.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay B Hann whose telephone number is (571)272-3330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-7pm EDT.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. 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.
/Jay Hann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186 10 June 2026
Prosecution Insights