DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Note
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of missing labels 113 and 335. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 330, 355. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (Pub. WO 2022 227067, Nov. 3, 2022), in view of Karl-Michael (Pub. WO 2021 043652 A1, 2021).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou et al teach
A computer-implemented method of assessing product compliance, the computer- implemented method comprising (Zhou [abstract]).
performing, by a testing machine, a physical test of a physical product having a first set of parameters (Zhou [0030]).
wherein the physical test results in an output value of a first metric corresponding to a test failure of the physical product (Zhou [0034]).
to determine whether the physical product having the second set of parameters would be certified according to a standard. (Zhou [0011] “if the virtual test fails, a stop signal is sent to the physical test platform to stop the physical test”) A test failure of Zhou is being interpreted as not passing a certification, no failure is equivalent to a “certification according to a standard” where the “standard” is the parameters being tested.
Zhou et al do not explicitly teach but Karl-Michael teaches
facilitating, by at least one computer processor, a first virtual test of a first virtual version of the physical product having the first set of parameters, (Karl-Michael claim 1 “Carrying out (104) a first simulation of at least one spatially resolved physical variable of the object by means of the object data”).
wherein the first virtual test employs the output value of the first metric and results in an output value of a second metric different from the first metric; (Karl-Michael claim 3 “the spatially resolved physical variable is a local reference voltage of the object)
facilitating, by the at least one computer processor, a second virtual test of a second virtual version of the physical product having a second set of parameters, (Karl-Michael claim 1 “Creating (108) the network for simulating the object by means of the structural information to be taken into account for a second simulation of the object.”)
wherein the second virtual test employs a test value of the first metric and results in an additional output value of the second metric; and (Karl-Michael claim 2 “the second simulation is a mechanical simulation of the object”)
comparing, by the at least one computer processor, the output value of the second metric to the additional output value of the second metric (Karl-Michael pg. 4 paragraph 3, “A relevance measure can be determined for each simulated spatially resolved structural information. The relevance measure can have information about the extent of spatially resolved structural information. With the relevance measure, which is compared with the local threshold value, it can be determined qualitatively whether a spatially resolved structural information has to be taken into account.”).
Zhou et al and Karl-Michael are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor: CPC class G06F30 Computer-aided design, more specifically, they are both directed towards object simulation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the physically calibrated product simulation testing system of Zhou with the multiple simulations of Karl-Michael. The motivation is to increase the accuracy of simulated tests so that they can effectively replace physical tests and bring down the cost of failure testing. Zhou recites the need for more accurate failure simulations. (Zhou [0005], “since test data is a prerequisite for simulation calculations, failure testing still requires considerable time and cost, and the above issues in existing technology have not been fully resolved”) Karl-Michael is directed to accurate simulation of failure states. (Karl-Michael pg. 2 paragraph 1, “The size of the elements of the network can be chosen so that the effects to be simulated can be realistically reproduced. If these structures are not correctly modeled in the network, the effects to be simulated may not be able to be reproduced with the required accuracy. This is particularly relevant in the case of so-called voltage peaks, since cracks can often form at these positions, which can spread and lead to damage or destruction of the object … Small changes to the simulated geometry have a major impact on the simulation result in the event of voltage peaks.”).
Claims 8 and 15 recite sufficiently similar limitations to claim 1 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 5-7, 12-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (Pub. WO 2022 227067, Nov. 3, 2022), in view of Karl-Michael (Pub. WO 2021 043652 A1, 2021), and further in view of Breu et al. (US Patent 6,154,712, Nov. 28, 2000).
Regarding Claim 5, in addition to the limitations of claim 1 taught by Zhou in view of Karl-Michael, Breu teaches the following limitations: comparing the output value of the second metric to the additional output value of the second metric (Breu Col. 7 Line 66-67 “calculating a value of a difference between the first test result and the second test result”) comprises: determining that the additional output value of the second metric is equal to or greater than the output value of the second metric; (Breu, Figure 4 “Determine Difference X1 – X2”, “LCL < DIFFERENCE < UCL”) and based on determining that the additional output value is equal to or greater than the output value, determining that the physical product having the second set of parameters should not be certified according to the standard. (Breu Col. 8 Line 6-8 “outputting a fault message if the value of the difference is outside a tolerance interval; and \ repeating steps a) and e) for at least one other parameter”)
Figure 4 teaches determining that the additional output value is equal or greater than the output value because in the simplest cases, LCL>0 and UCL=0 values would necessitate X2 to be less than X1, and thus outputting a fault would determine X2 to be equal or greater than. Applying a target difference test is equivalent to applying comparison operators.
Zhou et al., Karl-Michael, and Breu et al. are analogous arts because they are in the same fields of endeavor: product fault testing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the physically calibrated product simulation testing system of Zhou with the multiple simulations of Karl-Michael, with the comparison checks of Breu’s physical testing system, applied to the multiple simulated tests. The motivation is to increase the accuracy of simulated tests so that they can effectively replace physical tests and bring down the cost of failure testing. Zhou recites the need for more accurate failure simulations. (Zhou [0005], “since test data is a prerequisite for simulation calculations, failure testing still requires considerable time and cost, and the above issues in existing technology have not been fully resolved”) Karl-Michael is directed to accurate simulation of failure states. (Karl-Michael pg. 2 paragraph 1, “The size of the elements of the network can be chosen so that the effects to be simulated can be realistically reproduced. If these structures are not correctly modeled in the network, the effects to be simulated may not be able to be reproduced with the required accuracy. This is particularly relevant in the case of so-called voltage peaks, since cracks can often form at these positions, which can spread and lead to damage or destruction of the object … Small changes to the simulated geometry have a major impact on the simulation result in the event of voltage peaks.”) Breu combines tests to increase the standard of quality of tests. (Breu col. 2 ln. 13-17, “The procedure according to the invention, in the case of a test system linked to a production line, allows a discrepancy in the test system to be identified early during production”).
Claims 12 and 18 recite sufficiently similar limitations to claim 5 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 6, in addition to the limitations of claim 1 taught by Karl-Michael in view of Zhou, Breu teaches the following limitations: comparing the output value of the second metric to the additional output value of the second metric (Breu Col. 7 Line 66-67 “calculating a value of a difference between the first test result and the second test result”) comprises: determining that the additional output value of the second metric is less than the output value of the second metric; (Breu, Figure 4 “Determine Difference X1 – X2”, “LCL < DIFFERENCE < UCL”) and based on determining that the additional output value is less than the output value, determining that the physical product having the second set of parameters should be certified according to the standard. (Breu Col. 8 Line 6-8 “outputting a fault message if the value of the difference is outside a tolerance interval; and \ repeating steps a) and e) for at least one other parameter”).
Figure 4 teaches determining that the additional output value is equal or greater than the output value for the same mathematical reasons described in the analysis of claim 5; applying a target difference test is equivalent to applying comparison operators.
Zhou et al., Karl-Michael, and Breu et al. are analogous arts because they are in the same fields of endeavor: product fault testing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the physically calibrated product simulation testing system of Zhou with the multiple simulations of Karl-Michael, with the comparison checks of Breu’s physical testing system, applied to the multiple simulated tests. The motivation is to increase the accuracy of simulated tests so that they can effectively replace physical tests and bring down the cost of failure testing. Zhou recites the need for more accurate failure simulations. (Zhou [0005], “since test data is a prerequisite for simulation calculations, failure testing still requires considerable time and cost, and the above issues in existing technology have not been fully resolved”) Karl-Michael is directed to accurate simulation of failure states. (Karl-Michael pg. 2 paragraph 1, “The size of the elements of the network can be chosen so that the effects to be simulated can be realistically reproduced. If these structures are not correctly modeled in the network, the effects to be simulated may not be able to be reproduced with the required accuracy. This is particularly relevant in the case of so-called voltage peaks, since cracks can often form at these positions, which can spread and lead to damage or destruction of the object … Small changes to the simulated geometry have a major impact on the simulation result in the event of voltage peaks.”) Breu combines tests to increase the standard of quality of tests. (Breu col. 2 ln. 13-17, “The procedure according to the invention, in the case of a test system linked to a production line, allows a discrepancy in the test system to be identified early during production”).
Claims 13 and 19 recite sufficiently similar limitations to claim 6 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 7, in addition to the limitations of claim 1 taught by Zhou, in view of Karl-Michael and Breu teaches the following limitations: the test value of the first metric is specified by a standard test associated with the physical product (Breu Col. 4 Line 41-44, “The procedure according to the invention takes account of the distribution F, determined from the measured values, of the test procedure and of the quality aims in the statistical determination of the measurement tolerances.”), and wherein the test value of the first metric is less than the output value of the first metric (Breu Col. 4 Line 32-34, “During the product test, it is necessary to check whether the values Xi measured in the test apparatuses 2, 3 satisfy the rule…”).
Zhou et al., Karl-Michael, and Breu et al. are analogous arts because they are in the same fields of endeavor: product fault testing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the physically calibrated product simulation testing system of Zhou with the multiple simulations of Karl-Michael, with the comparison checks of Breu’s physical testing system, applied to the multiple simulated tests. The motivation is to increase the accuracy of simulated tests so that they can effectively replace physical tests and bring down the cost of failure testing. Zhou recites the need for more accurate failure simulations. (Zhou [0005], “since test data is a prerequisite for simulation calculations, failure testing still requires considerable time and cost, and the above issues in existing technology have not been fully resolved”) Karl-Michael is directed to accurate simulation of failure states. (Karl-Michael pg. 2 paragraph 1, “The size of the elements of the network can be chosen so that the effects to be simulated can be realistically reproduced. If these structures are not correctly modeled in the network, the effects to be simulated may not be able to be reproduced with the required accuracy. This is particularly relevant in the case of so-called voltage peaks, since cracks can often form at these positions, which can spread and lead to damage or destruction of the object … Small changes to the simulated geometry have a major impact on the simulation result in the event of voltage peaks.”) Breu combines tests to increase the standard of quality of tests. (Breu col. 2 ln. 13-17, “The procedure according to the invention, in the case of a test system linked to a production line, allows a discrepancy in the test system to be identified early during production”).
Claims 14 and 20 recite sufficiently similar limitations to claim 7 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 9, 11, & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al., in view of Karl-Michael, and additionally in view of Wang (Pub. CN 111880053 A, Nov. 3, 2020).
Regarding Claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1 taught by Zhou and Karl-Michael, Wang teaches the limitations: wherein performing the physical test of the physical product comprises: performing, by the testing machine, a dielectric test (Wang [0014], “Apply the corresponding withstand voltage… After 5 minutes, increase the voltage until the breakdown voltage”) of a test sample having the first set of parameters, (Wang [0010], “Prepare multiple cables (e.g., 6 cables 600mm long) as insulation samples”) wherein the dielectric test results in a breakdown voltage. (Wang [0014], “record the breakdown voltage values”).
Zhou, Karl-Michael, and Wang are analogous arts because they are in the same fields of endeavor: product fault testing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the physically calibrated product simulation testing system of Zhou with the multiple simulations of Karl-Michael, further with the dielectric test of Wang. The motivation is to increase the accuracy of simulated dielectric tests so that they can effectively replace physical dielectric tests and bring down the cost of failure testing. Zhou recites the need for more accurate failure simulations. (Zhou [0005], “since test data is a prerequisite for simulation calculations, failure testing still requires considerable time and cost, and the above issues in existing technology have not been fully resolved”) Karl-Michael is directed to accurate simulation of failure states. (Karl-Michael pg. 2 paragraph 1, “The size of the elements of the network can be chosen so that the effects to be simulated can be realistically reproduced. If these structures are not correctly modeled in the network, the effects to be simulated may not be able to be reproduced with the required accuracy. This is particularly relevant in the case of so-called voltage peaks, since cracks can often form at these positions, which can spread and lead to damage or destruction of the object … Small changes to the simulated geometry have a major impact on the simulation result in the event of voltage peaks.”) Wang fulfills the test data need recited by Zhou, and is directed specifically to dielectric failure testing.
Claims 9 and 16 recite sufficiently similar limitations to claim 2 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 4, in addition to the limitations of claim 1 taught by Zhou and Karl-Michael, Wang teaches the limitations: wherein performing the physical test of the physical product comprises: performing, by the testing machine, the physical test of the physical product by increasing a value of the first metric that is applied to the physical product until a test failure event occurs; (Wang [0014], “Apply the corresponding withstand voltage… After 5 minutes, increase the voltage until the breakdown voltage”) and recording, as the output value of the first metric, the value of the first metric that was applied to the physical product that caused the test failure event. (Wang [0014], “record the breakdown voltage values”).
Zhou, Karl-Michael, and Wang are analogous arts because they are in the same fields of endeavor: product fault testing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the physically calibrated product simulation testing system of Zhou with the multiple simulations of Karl-Michael, further with the dielectric test of Wang. The motivation is to increase the accuracy of simulated dielectric tests so that they can effectively replace physical dielectric tests and bring down the cost of failure testing. Zhou recites the need for more accurate failure simulations. (Zhou [0005], “since test data is a prerequisite for simulation calculations, failure testing still requires considerable time and cost, and the above issues in existing technology have not been fully resolved”) Karl-Michael is directed to accurate simulation of failure states. (Karl-Michael pg. 2 paragraph 1, “The size of the elements of the network can be chosen so that the effects to be simulated can be realistically reproduced. If these structures are not correctly modeled in the network, the effects to be simulated may not be able to be reproduced with the required accuracy. This is particularly relevant in the case of so-called voltage peaks, since cracks can often form at these positions, which can spread and lead to damage or destruction of the object … Small changes to the simulated geometry have a major impact on the simulation result in the event of voltage peaks.”) Wang fulfills the test data need recited by Zhou, and is directed specifically to dielectric failure testing.
Regarding Claim 11, in addition to the limitations of claim 9 taught by Zhou and Karl-Michael, Wang teaches the limitations: wherein to perform the physical test of the physical product, the testing machine is configured to: increase a value of the first metric that is applied to the physical product until a test failure event occurs, (Wang [0014], “Apply the corresponding withstand voltage… After 5 minutes, increase the voltage until the breakdown voltage”) and record, as the output value of the first metric, the value of the first metric that was applied to the physical product that caused the test failure event. (Wang [0014], “record the breakdown voltage values”).
Zhou, Karl-Michael, and Wang are analogous arts because they are in the same fields of endeavor: product fault testing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the physically calibrated product simulation testing system of Zhou with the multiple simulations of Karl-Michael, further with the dielectric test of Wang. The motivation is to increase the accuracy of simulated dielectric tests so that they can effectively replace physical dielectric tests and bring down the cost of failure testing. Zhou recites the need for more accurate failure simulations. (Zhou [0005], “since test data is a prerequisite for simulation calculations, failure testing still requires considerable time and cost, and the above issues in existing technology have not been fully resolved”) Karl-Michael is directed to accurate simulation of failure states. (Karl-Michael pg. 2 paragraph 1, “The size of the elements of the network can be chosen so that the effects to be simulated can be realistically reproduced. If these structures are not correctly modeled in the network, the effects to be simulated may not be able to be reproduced with the required accuracy. This is particularly relevant in the case of so-called voltage peaks, since cracks can often form at these positions, which can spread and lead to damage or destruction of the object … Small changes to the simulated geometry have a major impact on the simulation result in the event of voltage peaks.”) Wang fulfills the test data need recited by Zhou, and is directed specifically to dielectric failure testing.
Claim(s) 3, 10, & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al., in view of Karl-Michael, and additionally in view of Wang (Pub. CN 111880053 A, Nov. 3, 2020) and Kairouani (NPL, Sept. 12, 2008).
Regarding Claim 3, in addition to the limitations of claim 2 taught by Zhou, Karl-Michael, and Wang, Kairouani teaches the following limitations: wherein facilitating the first virtual test of the first virtual version of the physical product comprises: facilitating, by the at least one computer processor, a first virtual dielectric test (Kairouani, Section 3, “High Voltage Breakdown Modelling”) of the first virtual version of the test sample (Kairouani, Fig. 2, “Simulated temperature fields in a high-voltage circuit-breaker for N2 and SF6 configurations.”), wherein the first virtual dielectric test results an array of electric field strengths for the first virtual version of the test sample (Kairouani, Fig. 1, “Critical electric field values calculated with and without ion kinetics…”).
Zhou, Karl-Michael, Wang, and Kairouani are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor: Automated Product Testing. Furthermore, Wang and Kairouani both apply to the subfield of dielectric testing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the physically calibrated product testing system of Zhou with the multiple simulations of Karl-Michael, and apply the generic process to the physical and virtual dielectric testing of Wang and Kairouani. The motivation is to increase the accuracy of simulated dielectric tests so that they can effectively replace physical tests (Zhou [0022], “This invention enables the establishment of a calibrated simulation configuration database, making it possible for virtual testing to effectively replace many physical tests”).
Claims 10 and 17 recite sufficiently similar limitations to claim 3 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY GOLD whose telephone number is (571)270-7171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00 am - 5:00pm) ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HENRY JOYNER GOLD/ Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights