DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the Amendment filed on 5/12/2026. Claims 1-16 are pending in the case. Claim 1 is an independent claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment regarding the specification objection is persuasive. This objection is respectfully withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment regarding the claim objection is persuasive. This objection is respectfully withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments regarding the drawings objections are persuasive. These objections are respectfully withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections are persuasive. These rejections are respectfully withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections are persuasive. These rejections are respectfully withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments regarding the double patenting rejections are persuasive. These rejections are respectfully withdrawn.
Applicant’s prior art arguments have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection presented below do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-5, 7-8, 10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (“Improved architectures and training algorithms for deep operator networks,” 11 October 2021, https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.01654, hereinafter Wang).
As to independent claim 1, Wang discloses a data assimilation method comprising:
providing a deep operator neural network that approximates nonlinear operators (“Deep operator networks (DeepONets) [4] are a specialized deep learning architecture that aims to learn abstract nonlinear operators,” page 3 section “2.2 DeepONets and Physics-informed DeepONets” lines 1-2) by encoding input functions and space-time variables as inputs (“joint spatio-temporal domain,” page 4 line 7);
pretraining the deep operator neural network by minimizing a loss function (“a DeepONet model can be trained by minimizing the following loss
L
ϴ
=
1
N
∑
i
=
1
N
L
(
u
i
,
ϴ
)
,” page 4 lines 28-29); and
using the deep operator neural network that has been pre-trained to form constraints to approximate (“constrain the outputs of a DeepONet model to satisfy a given governing PDE,” page 4 line 35) multiphysics solutions (“solving multi-physics problems,” page 5 section “3.1 Gradients pathologies in DeepONets” line 2).
As to dependent claim 2, Wang further discloses a method wherein the deep operator neural network comprises:
a branch sub-network (“As illustrated in Fig 1, the DeepONet is composed of two separate neural networks referred as the ‘branch’ and ‘trunk’ networks, respectively. The branch network takes a function
u
as input and returns a features embedding
b
1
,
b
2
,
.
.
.
,
b
q
T
∊
R
q
as output, where
u
=
[
u
(
x
1
)
,
u
(
x
2
)
,
.
.
.
,
u
(
x
m
)
]
represents a function
u
∊
U
evaluated at a collection of fixed locations
x
i
i
=
1
m
,” page 4 lines 12-15) for encoding the input function at a fixed number of sensors (“Input functions
u
are represented via point-wise evaluations at a set of
m
=
100
fixed sensors
x
i
i
=
1
m
evenly spaced in
[
0,1
]
,” page 6 lines 13-14); and
a trunk sub-net for encoding locations for output functions (“The trunk network takes the continuous coordinates
y
as inputs, and outputs a features embedding
t
1
,
t
2
,
.
.
.
,
t
q
T
∊
R
q
,” page 4 lines 15-16).
As to dependent claim 3, Wang further discloses a method wherein two vectors from the branch sub-net and the trunk sub-net are merged together via a dot product to obtain an output function value (“The DeepONet architecture [4] consists of two sub-networks referred as the branch network and the trunk network, which extract latent representations of input functions
u
and input coordinates
y
at which the output functions are evaluated, respectively. A continuously differentiable representation of the output functions is then obtained by merging the outputs of each sub-network via a dot product,” page 5 figure 1 caption lines 1-4).
As to dependent claim 4, Wang further discloses a method wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises forecasting, the forecasting comprising predicting a time and a space of a state of a system (“Advection equation: Top: Exact solution versus the prediction of a trained conventional physics-informed DeepONet for a representative example in the test data-set,” page 15 figure 6 caption lines 1-2).
As to dependent claim 5, Wang further discloses a method wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises interrogating a system with different input scenarios to optimize design parameters of the system (“we compute the relative
L
2
errors over
N
=
10
3
random input functions sampled from a GRF with a different fixed output scale
k
and length scale
l
=
0.2
,” page 6 paragraph 3 lines 6-7).
As to dependent claim 7, Wang further discloses a method wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises identifying system parameters and discovering unobserved dynamics (“physics-informed DeepONets are capable of learning the solution operator of parametric PDEs in an entirely self-supervised manner, i.e. without any paired input-output observations,” page 5 lines 16-18).
As to dependent claim 8, Wang further discloses a method wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises forecasting applications (“Advection equation: Top: Exact solution versus the prediction of a trained conventional physics-informed DeepONet for a representative example in the test data-set,” page 15 figure 6 caption lines 1-2).
As to dependent claim 10, Wang further discloses a method wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises design applications (“From an applications standpoint, physics-informed DeepONets can be employed as a fast and differentiable surrogate for tackling general PDE-constrained optimization problems that routinely arise in science and engineering (e.g., design and control optimization problems),” page 21 paragraph 1 lines 9-11).
As to dependent claim 12, Wang further discloses a method wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises control or autonomy applications (“From an applications standpoint, physics-informed DeepONets can be employed as a fast and differentiable surrogate for tackling general PDE-constrained optimization problems that routinely arise in science and engineering (e.g., design and control optimization problems),” page 21 paragraph 1 lines 9-11).
As to dependent claim 14, Wang further discloses a method wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises identification or discovery applications (“region of viscous shocks are identified,” page 16 paragraph 2 line 11).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Kasabov et al. (US 2016/0210552 A1, hereinafter Kasabov).
As to dependent claim 6, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated.
Wang does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises actuating a system to achieve efficiency or autonomy.
Kasabov teaches a method wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises actuating a system to achieve efficiency or autonomy (paragraphs 0113-0114, 0216).
Accordingly, 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 network of Wang to achieve the efficiency or autonomy of Kasabov. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely achieving efficiency or autonomy (Kasabov paragraphs 0113-0114, 0216). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Das et al. (US 2020/0269322 A1, hereinafter Das), Xu et al. (US 2002/0168232 A1, hereinafter Xu), Han et al. (US 2020/0308028 A1, hereinafter Han), and Steinfeld et al. (US 2025/0065307 A1, hereinafter Steinfeld).
As to dependent claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated.
Wang does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the forecasting applications include airfoils and structural health monitoring.
Das teaches a method wherein the forecasting applications include airfoils (“airfoil like designs can be created on rectangular coupons and, finally, on airfoil shaped coupons,” paragraph 0213 lines 11-13) and structural health monitoring (“The use of this mid-range microstructure tracking and analysis program can be used to find the optimal settings for every new material, microstructure layout, deposit height, sample size, etc.,” paragraph 0139 lines 14-17).
Accordingly, 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 neural network of Wang to comprise the forecasting applications of Das. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, forecasting applications including airfoils (“airfoil like designs can be created on rectangular coupons and, finally, on airfoil shaped coupons,” Das paragraph 0213 lines 11-13) and structural health monitoring (“The use of this mid-range microstructure tracking and analysis program can be used to find the optimal settings for every new material, microstructure layout, deposit height, sample size, etc.,” Das paragraph 0139 lines 14-17). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Wang/Das does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the forecasting applications include VIV and material damage.
Xu teaches a method wherein the forecasting applications include VIV and material damage (“This vortex-induced vibration creates cyclic stresses on the cylindrical structure that may be too small to cause immediate fracture, but upon constant repetition may weaken or damage the riser through material fatigue or stress-induced fracture,” paragraph 0003 lines 12-16).
Accordingly, 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 neural network of Wang/Das to comprise the forecasting applications of Xu. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely forecasting applications including VIV and material damage (“This vortex-induced vibration creates cyclic stresses on the cylindrical structure that may be too small to cause immediate fracture, but upon constant repetition may weaken or damage the riser through material fatigue or stress-induced fracture,” Xu paragraph 0003 lines 12-16). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Wang/Das/Xu does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the forecasting applications include path planning.
Han teaches a method wherein the forecasting applications include path planning (“A novel return flow (RF) electromembrane desalination process was developed where direct control of flow path effectively limits the growth of ion depletion region,” paragraph 0152 lines 1-3).
Accordingly, 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 neural network of Wang/Das/Xu to comprise the forecasting applications of Han. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely forecasting applications including path planning (“A novel return flow (RF) electromembrane desalination process was developed where direct control of flow path effectively limits the growth of ion depletion region,” Han paragraph 0152 lines 1-3). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Wang/Das/Xu/Han does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the forecasting applications include solar thermal systems, material processing applications, additive manufacturing, and infiltration.
Steinfeld teaches a method wherein the forecasting applications include solar thermal systems (“solar thermal power,” paragraph 0015 lines 1-2), material processing applications (“additive manufacturing a structure for use in a thermochemical fuel production process,” abstract lines 6-7), additive manufacturing (“additive manufacturing a structure for use in a thermochemical fuel production process,” abstract lines 6-7), and infiltration (“Since presintering occurs at lower temperature than sintering, the pores shrink less and the slurry will have better infiltration,” paragraph 0195 lines 13-15).
Accordingly, 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 neural network of Wang/Das/Xu/Han to comprise the forecasting applications of Steinfeld. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely forecasting applications including solar thermal systems (“solar thermal power,” Steinfeld paragraph 0015 lines 1-2), material processing applications (“additive manufacturing a structure for use in a thermochemical fuel production process,” Steinfeld abstract lines 6-7), additive manufacturing (“additive manufacturing a structure for use in a thermochemical fuel production process,” Steinfeld abstract lines 6-7), and infiltration (“Since presintering occurs at lower temperature than sintering, the pores shrink less and the slurry will have better infiltration,” Steinfeld paragraph 0195 lines 13-15). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Das and Xu.
As to dependent claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated.
Wang does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the design applications include airfoils, material damage and structural health monitoring.
Das teaches a method wherein the design applications include airfoils (“airfoil like designs can be created on rectangular coupons and, finally, on airfoil shaped coupons,” paragraph 0213 lines 11-13) and structural health monitoring (“The use of this mid-range microstructure tracking and analysis program can be used to find the optimal settings for every new material, microstructure layout, deposit height, sample size, etc.,” paragraph 0139 lines 14-17).
Accordingly, 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 neural network of Wang to comprise the design applications of Das. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known software development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely design applications including airfoils (“airfoil like designs can be created on rectangular coupons and, finally, on airfoil shaped coupons,” Das paragraph 0213 lines 11-13) and structural health monitoring (“The use of this mid-range microstructure tracking and analysis program can be used to find the optimal settings for every new material, microstructure layout, deposit height, sample size, etc.,” Das paragraph 0139 lines 14-17). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Wang/Das does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the design applications include material damage.
Xu teaches a method wherein the design applications include material damage (“This vortex-induced vibration creates cyclic stresses on the cylindrical structure that may be too small to cause immediate fracture, but upon constant repetition may weaken or damage the riser through material fatigue or stress-induced fracture,” paragraph 0003 lines 12-16).
Accordingly, 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 network of Wang/Das to comprise the design applications of Xu. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely design applications including material damage (“This vortex-induced vibration creates cyclic stresses on the cylindrical structure that may be too small to cause immediate fracture, but upon constant repetition may weaken or damage the riser through material fatigue or stress-induced fracture,” Xu paragraph 0003 lines 12-16). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Das and Han.
As to dependent claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated.
Wang does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the control/autonomy applications include airfoils.
Das teaches a method wherein the control/autonomy applications include airfoils (“airfoil like designs can be created on rectangular coupons and, finally, on airfoil shaped coupons,” paragraph 0213 lines 11-13).
Accordingly, 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 neural network of Wang to comprise the airfoils of Das. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known software development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely control/autonomy applications include airfoils (“airfoil like designs can be created on rectangular coupons and, finally, on airfoil shaped coupons,” Das paragraph 0213 lines 11-13). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Wang/Das does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the control/autonomy applications include electro-convection and path planning.
Han teaches a method wherein the control/autonomy applications include electro-convection and path planning (“A novel return flow (RF) electromembrane desalination process was developed where direct control of flow path effectively limits the growth of ion depletion region,” paragraph 0152 lines 1-3).
Accordingly, 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 neural network of Wang/Das to comprise the control/autonomy applications of Han. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known software development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely control/autonomy applications including electro-convection and path planning (“A novel return flow (RF) electromembrane desalination process was developed where direct control of flow path effectively limits the growth of ion depletion region,” Han paragraph 0152 lines 1-3). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Xu and Han.
As to dependent claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated.
Wang does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the identification or discovery applications include VIV and material damage.
Xu teaches a method wherein the identification or discovery applications include VIV and material damage (“This vortex-induced vibration creates cyclic stresses on the cylindrical structure that may be too small to cause immediate fracture, but upon constant repetition may weaken or damage the riser through material fatigue or stress-induced fracture,” paragraph 0003 lines 12-16).
Accordingly, 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 network of Wang to comprise the design applications of Xu. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely design applications including VIV and material damage (“This vortex-induced vibration creates cyclic stresses on the cylindrical structure that may be too small to cause immediate fracture, but upon constant repetition may weaken or damage the riser through material fatigue or stress-induced fracture,” Xu paragraph 0003 lines 12-16). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Wang/Xu does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the identification or discovery applications include electro-convection.
Han teaches a method wherein the identification or discovery applications include electro-convection (“A novel return flow (RF) electromembrane desalination process was developed where direct control of flow path effectively limits the growth of ion depletion region,” paragraph 0152 lines 1-3).
Accordingly, 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 neural network of Wang/Xu to comprise the control/autonomy applications of Han. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known software development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely identification or discovery applications including electro-convection (“A novel return flow (RF) electromembrane desalination process was developed where direct control of flow path effectively limits the growth of ion depletion region,” Han paragraph 0152 lines 1-3). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and TenHouten et al. (US 2020/0114573 A1, hereinafter TenHouten).
As to dependent claim 16, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated.
Wang does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises resin transfer molding (RTM) applications.
TenHouten teaches a method wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises resin transfer molding (RTM) applications (“the face sheets are produced using resin transfer molding (RTM),” paragraph 0121 lines 12-13).
Accordingly, 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 neural network of Wang to comprise the resin transfer molding of TenHouten. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known software development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises resin transfer molding (RTM) applications (“the face sheets are produced using resin transfer molding (RTM),” TenHouten paragraph 0121 lines 12-13). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 2020/0387653 A1 disclosing machine learning multiphysics analysis
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicant is invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicant may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicant may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicant is reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicant to the USPTO via Internet e-mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicant via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan Barrett whose telephone number is 571 270 3311. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am to 5:30pm.
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 Michelle Bechtold can be reached at 571 431 0762. 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.
/Ryan Barrett/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2148
Prosecution Insights