ANTI-FATIGUE AND SAFETY CONTROL METHOD FOR ULTRA-LONG LIFE SERVICE STRUCTURES UNDER EXTREME ENVIRONMENT

§101 §103

DETAILED ACTION The office action is responsive to an application filed on 7/27/23 and is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-10 are pending. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation "the fatigue fracture mode" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the fracture mode" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the interaction principle of defect-matrix " in line 7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation " the environmental factors" in line 10 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the internal defect-matrix-environment interaction mechanism" in lines 10-11 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the process parameters" in lines 17-18 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the concept" in line 20 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 recites the limitation " the anti-fatigue and safety regulation" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the traditional anti-fatigue theory model" in lines 4-5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the defect leads" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the defect" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the environment weakening coefficient" in lines 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the corresponding expression" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the metallurgy and production process" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the fatigue test" in line 8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the material" in line 8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the test data" in lines 8-9 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the requirements" in line 11 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the current material" in lines 11-12 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the verification results" in line 9 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the design requirements " in line 9 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the current structural strength design parameters " in lines 10-11 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the structural strength design parameters " in line 13 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the structural service stress " in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the security simulation analysis" in line 8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the current service stress " in lines 10-11 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the requirements " in line 11 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims covers performance of the limitation in the mind or by pencil and paper and as a mathematical concept. Claim 1 Regarding step 1, claim 1 is directed towards a method which has the claims fall within the eligible statutory categories of processes, machines, manufactures and composition of matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 1 Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites “Step Sl: judge the fatigue fracture mode in the long life stage of the service structure, and if the fracture mode is internal defect induced fracture mode, proceed to step S2”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 1 recites “StepS3: considering the environmental factors, clarify the internal defect-matrix-environment interaction mechanism of ultra-high cycle fatigue under service conditions”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “Step S2: according to the interaction principle of defect-matrix, obtain the internal defect induced fatigue cracking mechanism in ultra-high cycle regime under the service environment” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Also, the limitation of “and obtain the environmental weakening coefficient” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Also, the limitation of “Step S4: considering the environmental factors, establish a fatigue life prediction model based on defect-load-life correlation under service conditions in ultra-high cycle regime” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the environmental factors are or what the service conditions are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Also, the limitation of “Step S5: according to the fatigue life prediction model on defect-load-life correlation under service conditions in ultra-high cycle regime, regulate the process parameters of material metallurgy and manufacturing, design parameters of structural strength, structural stress and environmental parameters based on the concept of integrated design / manufacturing” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the process parameters are being regulated or what the concept of the integrated design / manufacturing is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Further, the claim language of claim 1 does not recite a computer or components of a computer such as a processor, where an additional element is not claimed. Accordingly, the additional element of a processor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Regarding Step 2B, the limitations of “Step S2: according to the interaction principle of defect-matrix, obtain the internal defect induced fatigue cracking mechanism in ultra-high cycle regime under the service environment” and “and obtain the environmental weakening coefficient” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II). Also, the limitation of “Step S4: considering the environmental factors, establish a fatigue life prediction model based on defect-load-life correlation under service conditions in ultra-high cycle regime” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the environmental factors are or what the service conditions are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Also, the limitation of “Step S5: according to the fatigue life prediction model on defect-load-life correlation under service conditions in ultra-high cycle regime, regulate the process parameters of material metallurgy and manufacturing, design parameters of structural strength, structural stress and environmental parameters based on the concept of integrated design / manufacturing” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the process parameters are being regulated or what the concept of the integrated design / manufacturing is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim language of claim 1 does not recite a computer or components of a computer such as a processor, where an additional element is not claimed. Claim 2 Dependent claim 2 recites “wherein the step Si further comprising the steps of: judge the fatigue fracture mode in the long life stage of the service structure”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Dependent claim 2 recites “if the mode is surface defect induced fracture mode, carry out the anti-fatigue and safety regulation according to the traditional anti-fatigue theory model.”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the anti-fatigue and safety regulation is or what the traditional anti-fatigue theory model is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Claim 3 Dependent claim 3 recites “wherein the traditional anti-fatigue theory model includes Manson-Coffin model and Basquin model.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 4 Dependent claim 4 recites “wherein the interaction principle of defect-matrix in the step S2 is that local plasticity around the defect leads to matrix damage under continuously cyclic load.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 5 Dependent claim 5 recites “wherein the internal defect-matrix-environment interaction mechanism in the step S3 is that local plasticity around the defect, coupling of chemical elements and temperature lead to matrix damage under continuously cyclic load.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 6 Dependent claim 6 recites “ PNG media_image1.png 243 582 media_image1.png Greyscale ”. This limitation is solving the environment weaking coefficient H. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 7 Dependent claim 7 recites “ PNG media_image2.png 253 573 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 243 542 media_image3.png Greyscale ”. This limitation is solving the fatigue life prediction model in ultra-high cycle regime. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 8 Dependent claim 8 recites “wherein the regulating the process parameters of material metallurgy and manufacturing according to the fatigue life prediction model in ultra-high cycle regime in the step S5 further comprising the following steps: Step S511: control the metallurgy and production process according to the theoretical prediction model, and carry out material design and material manufacturing”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the metallurgy and production process is being controlled. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Dependent claim 8 recites “Step S512: conduct the fatigue test of the material and evaluating the test data”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the fatigue test is being conducted and how the test data is being evaluated. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Dependent claim 8 recites “Step S513: compare the evaluation results with expected indicators”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Dependent claim 8 recites “if the evaluation results meet the requirements of the expected indicators, then the current material is an ultra-long-life anti-fatigue material, and the process is over”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Dependent claim 8 recites “if the evaluation results do not meet the requirements of the expected indicators, then regulate the metallurgical and manufacturing process parameters and return to step S511 until the evaluation results meet the requirements of the expected indicators.”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the metallurgical and manufacturing process parameters are being regulated. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Claim 9 Dependent claim 9 recites “wherein the regulating the design parameters of structural strength according to the fatigue life prediction model in ultra-high cycle regime in the step S5 further comprising the following steps: Step S521: according to the fatigue fracture mode in the long life stage of the service structure, carry out the structural and material fatigue design”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the structural and material fatigue design are being carried out. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Dependent claim 9 recites “and obtaining structural strength design parameters”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Dependent claim 9 recites “Step S522: verify and check the structural strength design parameters based on the fatigue life prediction model in ultra-high cycle fatigue regime”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the structural strength design parameters are being verified and checked. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Dependent claim 9 recites “Step S523: compare the verification results with the design requirements”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Dependent claim 9 recites “if the verification results meet the design requirements, then the current structural strength design parameters are ultra-long-life anti-fatigue design parameters, and the process is over”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Dependent claim 9 recites “if the verification results do not meet the design requirements, then return to step S521 to regulate the structural strength design parameters until the verification results meet the design requirements.”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the structural strength design parameters are being regulated or what the design requirements are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Claim 10 Dependent claim 10 recites “wherein the regulating the structural service stress and environmental parameters according to the fatigue life prediction model in ultra-high cycle fatigue regime in the step S5 further comprising the following steps: Step S531: establish a digital twin model with the fatigue life prediction model in ultra-high cycle fatigue regime combined with the structural strength design parameters”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the digital twin model is being established with the fatigue life prediction model. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Dependent claim 10 recites “Step S532: carry out the security simulation analysis of the digital twin model”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the security simulation analysis of the digital twin model is being carried out. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Dependent claim 10 recites “Step S533: if the security simulation output result is safe, then the current service stress and environmental parameters meet the requirements, and the process is over”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Dependent claim 10 recites “if the security simulation output result is unsafe, then regulate the service stress and environmental parameters, and return to the step S531 until the security simulation output result is safe.”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the service stress and environmental parameters are being regulated. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Claims 1-10 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. 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(s) 1-2, 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over online reference A New Model for Predicting Ultra-High Cycle Fatigue Life, written by Mingliang et al. (from IDS dated 7/20/26) in view of online reference Effect of hydrogen on very high cycle fatigue behavior of a low-strength Cr-Ni-Mo-V steel containing micro-defects, written by Wang et al. (from IDS dated 7/20/26) in further view of Modgil (U.S. PGPub 2016/0246287). With respect to claim 1, Mingliang et al. discloses “An anti-fatigue and safety control method for ultra-long life service structures under extreme environment” as [Mingliang et al. (Pg. 1484, sec. 1.1 A Predictive Model Based on Stress Levels and Defect Dimensions, 1st paragraph, “Currently, there are still few theoretical models for predicting the fatigue life under ultra-high cycle conditions. MURAKAMI et al. [27~28] treated inclusions as cracks, defining their area as the projection perpendicular to the direction of maximum principal stress, thereby applying fracture mechanics to complex internal fatigue failure mechanisms and establishing a fatigue strength prediction method based on defect size and material microhardness, as illustrated by Equations (1) and (2). Subsequently, MA YER et al. [29] extended this approach by incorporating both inclusions and stress levels into ultra-high cycle fatigue life prediction [as shown in Equation (3)].”)]; “Step Sl: judge the fatigue fracture mode in the long life stage of the service structure, and if the fracture mode is internal defect induced fracture mode, proceed to step S2” as [Mingliang et al. (Pg. 1484, sec. 1.1 A Predictive Model Based on Stress Levels and Defect Dimensions, 1st paragraph, “Currently, there are still few theoretical models for predicting the fatigue life under ultra-high cycle conditions. MURAKAMI et al. [27~28] treated inclusions as cracks, defining their area as the projection perpendicular to the direction of maximum principal stress, thereby applying fracture mechanics to complex internal fatigue failure mechanisms and establishing a fatigue strength prediction method based on defect size and material microhardness, as illustrated by Equations (1) and (2). Subsequently, MA YER et al. [29] extended this approach by incorporating both inclusions and stress levels into ultra-high cycle fatigue life prediction [as shown in Equation (3)].”)]; “Step S2: according to the interaction principle of defect-matrix, obtain the internal defect induced fatigue cracking mechanism in ultra-high cycle regime under the service environment” as [Mingliang et al. (Pg. 1485, sec. 2 The New Ultrahigh-Frequency Fatigue Life Prediction Model, 1st paragraph, “In practice, the transition from surface to internal crack initiation patterns reflects variations in defect depth. Consequently, the study concludes that, in addition to stress level and defect size, defect location also plays a significant role in crack initiation. To better account for the impact of inclusion depth, the relative depth D of an inclusion is defined as shown in Equation (7): where d represents the sample size, and dm denotes the shortest distance from the inclusion center to the sample surface.”, Mingliang et al. Pg. 1485, sec. 2 The New Ultrahigh-Frequency Fatigue Life Prediction Model, last paragraph, “The newly developed life prediction model enhances the understanding of control factors for ultra-high cycle fatigue life by incorporating inclusion location as a variable. Changes in inclusion depth reflect shifts in crack initiation modes and enable identification of precise internal crack initiation locations.”, Eqn. 7)]; “Step S4: considering the environmental factors, establish a fatigue life prediction model based on defect-load-life correlation under service conditions in ultra-high cycle regime” as [Mingliang et al. (Pg. 1485, sec. 2 The New Ultrahigh-Frequency Fatigue Life Prediction Model, 4th paragraph, “After accounting for the defect location factor, the fatigue life prediction model is as follows”, Mingliang et al. Pg. 1485, sec. 2 The New Ultrahigh-Frequency Fatigue Life Prediction Model, last paragraph, “The newly developed life prediction model enhances the understanding of control factors for ultra-high cycle fatigue life by incorporating inclusion location as a variable. Changes in inclusion depth reflect shifts in crack initiation modes and enable identification of precise internal crack initiation locations.”, Eqns. 9 and 10)]; While Mingliang et al. teaches obtaining an internal defect induced fatigue cracking mechanism in ultra-high cycle regime, Mingliang et al. does not explicitly disclose “StepS3: considering the environmental factors, clarify the internal defect-matrix-environment interaction mechanism of ultra-high cycle fatigue under service conditions and obtain the environmental weakening coefficient” Wang et al. discloses “StepS3: considering the environmental factors, clarify the internal defect-matrix-environment interaction mechanism of ultra-high cycle fatigue under service conditions and obtain the environmental weakening coefficient” as [Wang et al. (Pg. 379, sec. 3.2 Fatigue crack initiation, 1st paragraph, “Fig. 4a is a follow up observation with the help of OM, and results indicate the optically dark area (ODA), according to Murakami et al. (2002), is filled with the whole fish-eye pattern. This area is reported to be crack growth areas affected with hydrogen [Furuya et al. (2002)]. As for the surface crack initiation, as shown in Fig. 4b, the optically dark area is not as obvious as that for interior cracking. It seems that the formation of ODA is essentially related to micro-defects, a more probable crack initiation site in case of hydrogen due to the hydrogen trapping process. This indicates the contribution of hydrogen to fatigue crack initiation behavior.”, Wang et al. Pg. 379, se. 3.3 Effect of hydrogen on interior cracking process, 1st – 2nd paragraph, “It seems that several inclusions have been activated as potential crack initiation sites for hydrogen charged specimens, indicating the hydrogen element tended to be trapped by micro-defects.”, Figs. 4 and 5)]; Mingliang et al. and Wang et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing fatigue life behavior of an object. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Mingliang et al. of obtaining an internal defect induced fatigue cracking mechanism in ultra-high cycle regime by incorporating StepS3: considering the environmental factors, clarify the internal defect-matrix-environment interaction mechanism of ultra-high cycle fatigue under service conditions and obtain the environmental weakening coefficient as taught by Wang et al. for the purpose of examining the degradation of fatigue strength and associated failure mechanisms of the Cr-Ni-Mo-V steel. Mingliang et al. in view of Wang et al. teaches StepS3: considering the environmental factors, clarify the internal defect-matrix-environment interaction mechanism of ultra-high cycle fatigue under service conditions and obtain the environmental weakening coefficient. The motivation for doing so would have been because Wang et al. teaches that by examining the degradation of fatigue strength and associated failure mechanisms of the Cr-Ni-Mo-V steel, the ability to analyze the fatigue strength of the object can be accomplished. This allows for a way to predict the defect of the object (Wang et al. Abstract, Pg. 381, sec. 4 Conclusions, 1st paragraph, “In this work, axially push-pull fatigue tests, etc.”). While the combination of Mingliang et al. and Wang et al. teaches establishing a fatigue life prediction model, Mingliang et al. and Wang et al. do not explicitly disclose “Step S5: according to the fatigue life prediction model on defect-load-life correlation under service conditions in ultra-high cycle regime, regulate the process parameters of material metallurgy and manufacturing, design parameters of structural strength, structural stress and environmental parameters based on the concept of integrated design / manufacturing.” Modgil discloses “Step S5: according to the fatigue life prediction model on defect-load-life correlation under service conditions in ultra-high cycle regime, regulate the process parameters of material metallurgy and manufacturing, design parameters of structural strength, structural stress and environmental parameters based on the concept of integrated design / manufacturing.” as [Modgil (paragraph [0038] “The random variables may correspond to parameters of one or more high-fidelity aeromechanics models 122 used in the forced response analysis (e.g., steady and unsteady computational fluid dynamics models, and finite element analysis models). At block 314, the computing system 100 determines the data values for each of the random variables. To do this, the computing system 100 executes simulations using the aeromechanics models 122. The computing system 100 applies the gPC sampling techniques described above to the output (e.g., test data 214) of the simulations to accelerate convergence.”, Modgil paragraph [0040] “At block 326, the computing system 100 may evaluate the HCF risk assessment obtained at block 324 to determine (or allow an end user to determine) whether to modify the design of the turbomachinery component (e.g., a turbine blade or blisk design). For example, if the risk of HCF failure determined at block 324 is greater than a pre-defined threshold level, the computing system 100 may determine that a design change is needed. If the computing system 100 determines that a design change is needed, the method 300 returns to block 310 and re-executes the method 300 with the new set of design parameters.”, Fig. 3, The examiner considers the turbomachinery component (turbine blade) to be the material metallurgy, since turbine blades are made with nickel-based superalloys. Nickel is a silver-white hard malleable ductile metallic element capable of a high polish and resistant to corrosion that is used chiefly in alloys and as a catalyst, see attachment of definition of Nickel. Mingliang et al., Wang et al. and Modgil are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing fatigue life behavior of an object. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Mingliang et al. and Wang et al. of establishing a fatigue life prediction model by incorporating Step S5: according to the fatigue life prediction model on defect-load-life correlation under service conditions in ultra-high cycle regime, regulate the process parameters of material metallurgy and manufacturing, design parameters of structural strength, structural stress and environmental parameters based on the concept of integrated design / manufacturing as taught by Modgil for the purpose of evaluating the design of a turbomachinery component for risk of failure due to high cycle fatigue. Mingliang et al. in view of Wang et al. in further view of Modgil teaches Step S5: according to the fatigue life prediction model on defect-load-life correlation under service conditions in ultra-high cycle regime, regulate the process parameters of material metallurgy and manufacturing, design parameters of structural strength, structural stress and environmental parameters based on the concept of integrated design / manufacturing. The motivation for doing so would have been because Modgil teaches that by evaluating the design of a turbomachinery component for risk of failure due to high cycle fatigue, the ability predict the failure of a turbine blade can be accomplished. This allows a way to know the lifespan of the turbine blade (Modgil paragraph [0004] – [0006]). With respect to claim 2, the combination of Mingliang et al., Wang et al. and Modgil discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Mingliang et al. further discloses “wherein the step S1 further comprising the steps of: judge the fatigue fracture mode in the long life stage of the service structure, if the mode is surface defect induced fracture mode, carry out the anti-fatigue and safety regulation according to the traditional anti-fatigue theory model.” as [Mingliang et al. (Pg. 1485, sec. 2 The New Ultrahigh-Frequency Fatigue Life Prediction Model, 1st paragraph, “In practice, the transition from surface to internal crack initiation patterns reflects variations in defect depth. Consequently, the study concludes that, in addition to stress level and defect size, defect location also plays a significant role in crack initiation. To better account for the impact of inclusion depth, the relative depth D of an inclusion is defined as shown in Equation (7): where d represents the sample size, and dm denotes the shortest distance from the inclusion center to the sample surface.”, Mingliang et al. Pg. 1485, sec. 2 The New Ultrahigh-Frequency Fatigue Life Prediction Model, last paragraph, “The newly developed life prediction model enhances the understanding of control factors for ultra-high cycle fatigue life by incorporating inclusion location as a variable. Changes in inclusion depth reflect shifts in crack initiation modes and enable identification of precise internal crack initiation locations.”, Eqn. 7)]; With respect to claim 4, the combination of Mingliang et al., Wang et al. and Modgil discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Wang et al. further discloses “wherein the interaction principle of defect-matrix in the step S2 is that local plasticity around the defect leads to matrix damage under continuously cyclic load.” as [Wang et al. (Pg. 377, sec. 2 Materials and experimental method, 3rd paragraph, “Ultrasonic fatigue tests were performed at approximately 20 kHz using an ultrasonic fatigue machine (USF-2000, Shimadzu, Japan). A sine type cyclic load with a load ratio of −1 was applied. During the tests, compressive air was used during fatigue testing to reduce “self-heating” of specimens. In addition, an intermittent loading scheme, i.e., 500 ms of pulse followed by 1000 ms of pause, was employed to minimize the thermal effect. The fatigue tests terminated until the fatigue cycles reached 109 cycles.”)]; With respect to claim 5, the combination of Mingliang et al., Wang et al. and Modgil discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Wang et al. further discloses “wherein the internal defect-matrix-environment interaction mechanism in the step S3 is that local plasticity around the defect, coupling of chemical elements and temperature lead to matrix damage under continuously cyclic load.” as [Wang et al. (Pg. 377, sec. 2 Materials and experimental method, 1st paragraph, “The material tested was a low-strength Cr-Ni-Mo-V steel used as a steam turbine rotor material. A final tempering process was conducted at 560°C for 40 hours. The microstructures are mainly tempered martensites [Zhu et al. (2015b)]. The chemical composition and the mechanical properties are listed in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. The specimen geometry for ultrasonic fatigue testing is shown in Fig. 1. To reduce the influence of surface roughness as much as possible, all specimens were mechanically polished.”, Wang et al. Pg. 377, sec. 2 Materials and experimental method, 3rd paragraph, “Ultrasonic fatigue tests were performed at approximately 20 kHz using an ultrasonic fatigue machine (USF-2000, Shimadzu, Japan). A sine type cyclic load with a load ratio of −1 was applied. During the tests, compressive air was used during fatigue testing to reduce “self-heating” of specimens. In addition, an intermittent loading scheme, i.e., 500 ms of pulse followed by 1000 ms of pause, was employed to minimize the thermal effect. The fatigue tests terminated until the fatigue cycles reached 109 cycles, Table 1)]; With respect to claim 6, the combination of Mingliang et al., Wang et al. and Modgil discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Wang et al. further discloses “ PNG media_image1.png 243 582 media_image1.png Greyscale ” as [Wang et al. (Pg. 378, sec. 3.1 S-N Curves, “The S–N curves of two series of specimens are shown in Fig. 2. Runout data are represented with arrows. With the decrease of stress amplitude, the fatigue lifetime increases gradually up to the VHCF regime, the S–N curves show a continuously decreasing mode. Current data are still limited to judge on the existence of conventional fatigue limit. As shown in Fig. 2, there is a significant influence associated with hydrogen charging on the fatigue life. The fatigue strength of hydrogen charged specimens is obviously lower than those as-received ones.”, Fig. 2, Fig. 2 shows that hydrogen affects the fatigue life and that the fatigue strength of the hydrogenated specimen is lower than original specimens. The examiner considers the environmental degradation coefficient based on the ratio of the fatigue strength of hydrogenated specimens to original specimens to be the weakening coefficient, since it shows how fatigue life is affected)]; With respect to claim 7, the combination of Mingliang et al., Wang et al. and Modgil discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Mingliang et al. further discloses “ PNG media_image2.png 253 573 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 243 542 media_image3.png Greyscale ” as [Mingliang et al. (Pg. 1485, sec. 2 The New Ultrahigh-Frequency Fatigue Life Prediction Model, 4th paragraph, “After accounting for the defect location factor, the fatigue life prediction model is as follows: PNG media_image4.png 40 153 media_image4.png Greyscale , Mingliang et al. Pg. 1485, sec. 2 The New Ultrahigh-Frequency Fatigue Life Prediction Model, last paragraph, “The newly developed life prediction model enhances the understanding of control factors for ultra-high cycle fatigue life by incorporating inclusion location as a variable. Changes in inclusion depth reflect shifts in crack initiation modes and enable identification of precise internal crack initiation locations.”, Eqns. 9 and 10)]; With respect to claim 8, the combination of Mingliang et al., Wang et al. and Modgil discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Modgil further discloses “wherein the regulating the process parameters of material metallurgy and manufacturing according to the fatigue life prediction model in ultra-high cycle regime in the step S5 further comprising the following steps: Step S511: control the metallurgy and production process according to the theoretical prediction model, and carry out material design and material manufacturing” as [Modgil (paragraph [0040] “At block 326, the computing system 100 may evaluate the HCF risk assessment obtained at block 324 to determine (or allow an end user to determine) whether to modify the design of the turbomachinery component (e.g., a turbine blade or blisk design). For example, if the risk of HCF failure determined at block 324 is greater than a pre-defined threshold level, the computing system 100 may determine that a design change is needed. If the computing system 100 determines that a design change is needed, the method 300 returns to block 310 and re-executes the method 300 with the new set of design parameters. If the computing system determines that no design change is needed, the computing system 100 proceeds to block 328. At block 328, the computing system 100 may generate a reliability assessment for the design based on the design parameters determined at block 310, using the HCF risk assessment developed at block 324., Fig. 3)]; “Step S512: conduct the fatigue test of the material and evaluating the test data” as [Modgil (paragraph [0038] “The computing system 100 may select the random variables based on, for example, one or more of the design parameters 210. The random variables may correspond to parameters of one or more high-fidelity aeromechanics models 122 used in the forced response analysis (e.g., steady and unsteady computational fluid dynamics models, and finite element analysis models). At block 314, the computing system 100 determines the data values for each of the random variables. To do this, the computing system 100 executes simulations using the aeromechanics models 122. The computing system 100 applies the gPC sampling techniques described above to the output (e.g., test data 214) of the simulations to accelerate convergence.”, Modgil paragraph [0039] “Using the test results from the executed simulations, at block 316, the computing system 100 computes the uncertainty estimates for vibratory stress and steady stress using polynomial approximation as described above.”, Fig. 3)]; “Step S513: compare the evaluation results with expected indicators, if the evaluation results meet the requirements of the expected indicators, then the current material is an ultra-long-life anti-fatigue material, and the process is over, if the evaluation results do not meet the requirements of the expected indicators, then regulate the metallurgical and manufacturing process parameters and return to step S511 until the evaluation results meet the requirements of the expected indicators.” as [Modgil (paragraph [0040] “At block 326, the computing system 100 may evaluate the HCF risk assessment obtained at block 324 to determine (or allow an end user to determine) whether to modify the design of the turbomachinery component (e.g., a turbine blade or blisk design). For example, if the risk of HCF failure determined at block 324 is greater than a pre-defined threshold level, the computing system 100 may determine that a design change is needed. If the computing system 100 determines that a design change is needed, the method 300 returns to block 310 and re-executes the method 300 with the new set of design parameters. If the computing system determines that no design change is needed, the computing system 100 proceeds to block 328. At block 328, the computing system 100 may generate a reliability assessment for the design based on the design parameters determined at block 310, using the HCF risk assessment developed at block 324., Fig. 3)]; With respect to claim 9, the combination of Mingliang et al., Wang et al. and Modgil discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Modgil further discloses “wherein the regulating the design parameters of structural strength according to the fatigue life prediction model in ultra-high cycle regime in the step S5 further comprising the following steps: Step S521: according to the fatigue fracture mode in the long life stage of the service structure, carry out the structural and material fatigue design and obtaining structural strength design parameters” as [Modgil (paragraph [0026] “ For example, the HCF predictor 132 may be invoked by a turbomachinery component designer or engineer to obtain a predicted risk of HCF failure for a particular set of design parameters 210, to evaluate a finalized component design for HCF failure risk, or to assess the reliability of an existing component that is already in operational use, based on a particular set of uncertainty factors 212, test data 214, and input probability distribution functions 216.”, Modgil paragraph [0027] “The HCF predictor 132 determines or obtains the design parameters 210, random variables 212, test data 214, and input PDFs 216 by any suitable input or data communication mechanism, whether user-initiated or an automated process. For example, the design parameters 210, random variables 212, test data 214, and/or input PDFs 216 may be obtained by the processor 112 accessing the memory 114 or the data storage 118, by interfacing with the communication subsystem 128, or by communicating with the user interface subsystem 130.”, Fig. 2)]; “Step S522: verify and check the structural strength design parameters based on the fatigue life prediction model in ultra-high cycle fatigue regime” as [Modgil (paragraph [0040] “For example, if the risk of HCF failure determined at block 324 is greater than a pre-defined threshold level, the computing system 100 may determine that a design change is needed. If the computing system 100 determines that a design change is needed, the method 300 returns to block 310 and re-executes the method 300 with the new set of design parameters. If the computing system determines that no design change is needed, the computing system 100 proceeds to block 328. At block 328, the computing system 100 may generate a reliability assessment for the design based on the design parameters determined at block 310, using the HCF risk assessment developed at block 324., Fig. 3)]; “Step S523: compare the verification results with the design requirements, if the verification results meet the design requirements, then the current structural strength design parameters are ultra-long-life anti-fatigue design parameters, and the process is over, if the verification results do not meet the design requirements, then return to step S521 to regulate the structural strength design parameters until the verification results meet the design requirements.” as [Modgil (paragraph [0040] “At block 326, the computing system 100 may evaluate the HCF risk assessment obtained at block 324 to determine (or allow an end user to determine) whether to modify the design of the turbomachinery component (e.g., a turbine blade or blisk design). For example, if the risk of HCF failure determined at block 324 is greater than a pre-defined threshold level, the computing system 100 may determine that a design change is needed. If the computing system 100 determines that a design change is needed, the method 300 returns to block 310 and re-executes the method 300 with the new set of design parameters. If the computing system determines that no design change is needed, the computing system 100 proceeds to block 328. At block 328, the computing system 100 may generate a reliability assessment for the design based on the design parameters determined at block 310, using the HCF risk assessment developed at block 324., Fig. 3)]; Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mingliang et al. in view of Wang et al. in further view of Modgil in further view of online reference A damage evolution model based on micro-structural characteristics for an additive manufactured superalloy under monotonic and cyclic loading conditions, written by Pei et al. With respect to claim 3, the combination of Mingliang et al., Wang et al. and Modgil discloses the method of claim 2 above. While the combination of Mingliang et al., Wang et al. and Modgil teaches establishing a fatigue life prediction model, Mingliang et al., Wang et al. and Modgil do not explicitly disclose “wherein the traditional anti-fatigue theory model includes Manson-Coffin model and Basquin model.” Pei et al. discloses “wherein the traditional anti-fatigue theory model includes Manson-Coffin model and Basquin model.” as [Pei et al. (Pg. 2, sec. 2.2 Mechanical properties of the materials, 2nd paragraph, “The symbols represent experiments and curves are predictions from the Manson-Coffin model [17] (Fig. 2(a)) as PNG media_image5.png 33 255 media_image5.png Greyscale and the Basquin model [17] (Fig. 2(b)) as PNG media_image6.png 26 94 media_image6.png Greyscale where σ is the fatigue strength coefficient, E is the elastic modulus, b is the fatigue strength exponent, f is the fatigue ductility coefficient, and c is the fatigue ductility exponent. P and Q are material constants. The model parameters for fatigue performance are summarized in Table 3.”, Fig. 2 and Table 3)]; Mingliang et al., Wang et al., Modgil and Pei et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing fatigue life behavior of an object. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Mingliang et al., Wang et al. and Modgil of establishing a fatigue life prediction model by incorporating wherein the traditional anti-fatigue theory model includes Manson-Coffin model and Basquin model as taught by Pei et al. for the purpose of predict the damage evolution in the alloys under both monotonic and cyclic loading. Mingliang et al. in view of Wang et al. in further view of Modgil in further view of Pei et al. teaches wherein the traditional anti-fatigue theory model includes Manson-Coffin model and Basquin model. The motivation for doing so would have been because Pei et al. teaches that by predicting the damage evolution in the alloys under both monotonic and cyclic loading, the ability to know the fatigue life of the alloys can be accomplished. This alloys a way to know the lifespan of an alloy (Pei et al. Pg. 2, left col., 1st – 2nd paragraph, “The published works above with focus on effects, etc.”). Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mingliang et al. in view of Wang et al. in further view of Modgil in further view of online reference Real-time prediction method of fatigue life of bridge crane structure based on digital twin, written by Dong et al. With respect to claim 10, the combination of Mingliang et al., Wang et al. and Modgil discloses the method of claim 1 above. While the combination of Mingliang et al., Wang et al. and Modgil teaches establishing a fatigue life prediction model, Mingliang et al., Wang et al. and Modgil do not explicitly disclose “wherein the regulating the structural service stress and environmental parameters according to the fatigue life prediction model in ultra-high cycle fatigue regime in the step S5 further comprising the following steps: Step S531: establish a digital twin model with the fatigue life prediction model in ultra-high cycle fatigue regime combined with the structural strength design parameters; Step S532: carry out the security simulation analysis of the digital twin model; Step S533: if the security simulation output result is safe, then the current service stress and environmental parameters meet the requirements, and the process is over, if the security simulation output result is unsafe, then regulate the service stress and environmental parameters, and return to the step S531 until the security simulation output result is safe.” Dong et al. discloses “wherein the regulating the structural service stress and environmental parameters according to the fatigue life prediction model in ultra-high cycle fatigue regime in the step S5 further comprising the following steps: Step S531: establish a digital twin model with the fatigue life prediction model in ultra-high cycle fatigue regime combined with the structural strength design parameters” as [Dong et al. (Pg. 2283, sec. 2 Fatigue Life Prediction Model of Bridge Crane Structure Based on Digital Twin, 1st – 2nd paragraph, “Aiming at this problem, the real-time fatigue life prediction model of bridge crane structure based on digital twin is established by the Kriging surrogate model, as shown in Figure 1……. As illustrated in Figure 1, in accordance with the physical entity of general bridge crane, the current service status information is acquired by the information acquisition system. The current service status information, inherent information, and historical service information are used to construct the fuzzy database. Based on that, the twin data are achieved by the clear quantification of fuzzy information and data processing technology.”, Fig. 1)]; “Step S532: carry out the security simulation analysis of the digital twin model” as [Dong et al. (Pg. 2283, sec. 2 Fatigue Life Prediction Model of Bridge Crane Structure Based on Digital Twin, 2nd paragraph, “Finally, according to the prediction results, the inspector makes real-time decision on the extension, repair, replacement, or scrapping scheme of structure. In the whole process, the prediction results reflect the damage state of physical entities, while the physical entities are driven by the real-time prediction results.”, Fig. 1)]; “Step S533: if the security simulation output result is safe, then the current service stress and environmental parameters meet the requirements, and the process is over, if the security simulation output result is unsafe, then regulate the service stress and environmental parameters, and return to the step S531 until the security simulation output result is safe.” as [Dong et al. (Pg. 2283, sec. 2 Fatigue Life Prediction Model of Bridge Crane Structure Based on Digital Twin, 2nd paragraph “Then, the Kriging surrogate model is constructed by experimental design to predict the real-time life of structure under fatigue crack growth, thus forming a virtual space corresponding to the physical space. Finally, according to the prediction results, the inspector makes real-time decision on the extension, repair, replacement, or scrapping scheme of structure. In the whole process, the prediction results reflect the damage state of physical entities, while the physical entities are driven by the real-time prediction results.)]; Mingliang et al., Wang et al., Modgil and Dong et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing fatigue life behavior of an object. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Mingliang et al., Wang et al. and Modgil of establishing a fatigue life prediction model by incorporating wherein the regulating the structural service stress and environmental parameters according to the fatigue life prediction model in ultra-high cycle fatigue regime in the step S5 further comprising the following steps: Step S531: establish a digital twin model with the fatigue life prediction model in ultra-high cycle fatigue regime combined with the structural strength design parameters; Step S532: carry out the security simulation analysis of the digital twin model; Step S533: if the security simulation output result is safe, then the current service stress and environmental parameters meet the requirements, and the process is over, if the security simulation output result is unsafe, then regulate the service stress and environmental parameters, and return to the step S531 until the security simulation output result is safe as taught by Dong et al. for the purpose of evaluating the security of a bridge crane structure. Mingliang et al. in view of Wang et al. in further view of Modgil in further view of Dong et al. teaches wherein the regulating the structural service stress and environmental parameters according to the fatigue life prediction model in ultra-high cycle fatigue regime in the step S5 further comprising the following steps: Step S531: establish a digital twin model with the fatigue life prediction model in ultra-high cycle fatigue regime combined with the structural strength design parameters; Step S532: carry out the security simulation analysis of the digital twin model; Step S533: if the security simulation output result is safe, then the current service stress and environmental parameters meet the requirements, and the process is over, if the security simulation output result is unsafe, then regulate the service stress and environmental parameters, and return to the step S531 until the security simulation output result is safe. The motivation for doing so would have been because Dong et al. teaches that by evaluating the security of a bridge crane structure, the ability to determine the lifespan of a bridge crane structure can be accomplished. This allows designers to know an approximate time when a bridge crane structure could fail (Dong et al. Pg. 2301, sec. 10 Conclusion, 1st – 3rd paragraph, “A real-time fatigue life prediction model of bridge crane structure based on digital twin is proposed, etc.”). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The relevance of Wang et al. (U.S. PGPub 2010/0235110) is a system to predict a fatigue life of an aluminum alloy. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD E COTHRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5594. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -5:30PM EST M-F. 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 F Pitaro can be reached at (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. /BERNARD E COTHRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2188 /RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188