DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1 – 29 are presented for examination.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5).
The specification is objected for minor informality.
Claim 12, 19 and 20-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ).
Claims 20-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ),
Claim 1-19 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6 -10, 12-19, 26-27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alwattar, Tahseen A., and Ahsan Mian. "Development of an elastic material model for BCC lattice cell structures using finite element analysis and neural networks approaches." Journal of composites science 3.2 (2019): 33 in the view of PRISSOK FRANK (WO 2018172287 A1).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alwattar, Tahseen A., and Ahsan Mian. "Development of an elastic material model for BCC lattice cell structures using finite element analysis and neural networks approaches." Journal of composites science 3.2 (2019): 33 in the view of PRISSOK FRANK (WO 2018172287 A1), further in the view of Berger; Jonathan ( US 10696009 B2).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alwattar, Tahseen A., and Ahsan Mian. "Development of an elastic material model for BCC lattice cell structures using finite element analysis and neural networks approaches." Journal of composites science 3.2 (2019): 33 in the view of PRISSOK FRANK (WO 2018172287 A1) further in the view of Malik; Muhammad Haris (US 9274036)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alwattar, Tahseen A., and Ahsan Mian. "Development of an elastic material model for BCC lattice cell structures using finite element analysis and neural networks approaches." Journal of composites science 3.2 (2019): 33 in the view of PRISSOK FRANK (WO 2018172287 A1) further in the view of Xie, Ruinan, Chad Ulven, and Bashir Khoda. "Design and manufacturing of variable stiffness mattress." Procedia Manufacturing 26 (2018): 132-139.
Claims 20 -24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alwattar, Tahseen A., and Ahsan Mian. "Development of an elastic material model for BCC lattice cell structures using finite element analysis and neural networks approaches." Journal of composites science 3.2 (2019): 33 in the view of PRISSOK FRANK (WO 2018172287 A1) further in the view of Gilbert; Anthony K (US 9770873 B2).
Claims 25 and 28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alwattar, Tahseen A., and Ahsan Mian. "Development of an elastic material model for BCC lattice cell structures using finite element analysis and neural networks approaches." Journal of composites science 3.2 (2019): 33 in the view of PRISSOK FRANK (WO 2018172287 A1) in the view of Gilbert; Anthony K (US 9770873 B2) further in the view of Xie, Ruinan, Chad Ulven, and Bashir Khoda. "Design and manufacturing of variable stiffness mattress." Procedia Manufacturing 26 (2018): 132-139.
This action is Non-Final rejection .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made for a claims benefit of a foreign priority of EP20214050.5 with a filing date of 12/15/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS submitted on 06/11/2023 and 07/13/2023 is reviewed and considered. See attached documents.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: reference number 100 on [0161] as a composite element 100, is not included in the drawing. 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0214], the edge 116, it should be edge 118.
[0214] –[0226], numerical simulation 139, it should be numerical simulation 130.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim limitations are listed as a, d, ,b, it should be ordered properly as a, b, c.
Appropriate correction is required.
All dependent claims (claims which are dependent on claim 1) are also objected with the same reason as claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is
“communication Interface “ in claim 20 and 26.
“output unit” in claim 22 and 26.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner Note: The specification doesn’t provide a specific structure, so it also invokes
35 USC 112 (a) and (b), see below for further explanation in 35 USC 112(b) claim
rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12, 19 and 20-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “fully or partially ” in claim 12 and 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fully or partially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The phase “fully or partially leaves the claim in doubt as to which step of the claim are actually performed by a computer program.
Claim 20 and 26 disclose a “communication interface “ and “output unit” but it doesn’t have any structure which is capable to perform the claim limitations. The specification does not appear to disclose any structure for the model, modules on system claims. Therefore what structure is included in these modules is indefinite.
The dependent claim 21-25 and 27-29 is also rejected under the same ration since they are dependent on either claim 20 or 26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 20-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ),
first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The
claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a
way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint
inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time
the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 20-29 are directed to a system, however the modules disclosed therein do not have structural
support in the specification. The specification lacking a written description which shows a structures of “communication interface” and “output unit”.
The dependent claim 21-25 and 27-29 is also rejected under the same ration since they are dependent on either claim 20 or 26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 12 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because both claim 12 and 19 is a computer program which is directed to software per se because only if at least one of the claimed elements of the method is a physical part of a device can the method as claimed constitute part of a device or combination of devices to be a machine within the meaning of 101. Since a “A computer program” consists merely instruction and the method is not the part of claim so the claim can be reasonably implemented as software routines, the claim is a system of software, failing to fall within a statutory category of invention.
Claims 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention recites a judicial exception, which is directed to judicial exception of an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claim further do not recite significantly more that the judicial exception.
Step 1: claims 1 -11 and 13- 18 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 20-29 are directed to a system , which is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. While claim 12 and 19 are directed to a computer program, which is not a statutory category of invention as discussed above as software per se.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes, the claims recites abstract idea . abstract idea in the claims are bolded as shown below.
Claim 1 and 20:
determining at least one geometric model of the composite element based on the input parameter set using at least one ;(under a broadest reasonable interpretation this claim limitation is a mental process. A human mind can determine a model using input parameters through observation, analyzing and judgment of the input parameter. Therefore this claim limitations is abstract idea as a mental process since a human mind can analyze input parameter to determine a geometric model using a pencil and paper).
determining at least one mechanical property of the geometric model of the composite element by using at least one numerical simulation, wherein the mechanical property comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of tension property, pressure property, shear property, temperature property, and a combination thereof. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim limitation recites abstract idea under mental process. A human mind determine a mechanical property using input parameters with a mathematical concept by making observation analyzation and judgment with the aid of pen and paper. For example a stress on a composite element can be computed by a mathematical equation using input parameters of force and area.
Claim 13 and 26:
Claim 13 includes the above abstract ideas of claim 1 and it also recites additional abstract idea of:
at least one optimization step, wherein the optimization step comprises determining a target parameter set for the target composite element by comparing the determined mechanical property with the target criterion, wherein the target parameter is set by adapting the input parameter set depending on the comparison in case the target criterion is not fulfilled, or by setting the input parameter set as target parameter set in case the target criterion is fulfilled: under its reasonable broadens interpretation this claim limitation recites abstract idea under mental process. A human mind can perform optimization by varying input parameters and set a target parameter by comparing the mechanical property with the target criterion to make a judgment to keep or change the target parameter based on the comparation, for example if the target parameter of force is applied then a human mind can determine stress using target parameter and compare with the target criterion to make a judgment through humans ability of observation and analyzing input parameters using a pencil and paper.
Step 2A prong 2: No
The above judicially exceptions do not recite additional elements that integrate
the exceptions into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not
have additional elements of a combination of additional elements that apply, rely or use
the judicial exception in a manner that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial
exception.
Claims recites gathering data which is insignificant extra solution activity. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in
conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information
about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract
mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366,
1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claims 1 and 20:
providing at least one input parameter set, wherein the input parameter set comprises a plurality of parameters defining properties of each of the single layers; (insignificant extra solution activity - data gathering such as such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)
Claims 13 and 26
retrieving at least one target criterion for a target composite element (insignificant extra solution activity - data gathering such as such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)
providing the determined target parameter set as layout for the composite element (insignificant extra- solution activity – data gathering, such as 'outputting data'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)
Step 2B :No:
The claims do not cite additional elements which are significantly more
than the abstract idea. As outlined above the claims merely use a computer to perform abstract ideas. Merely using of a computer and applying abstract ideas into a system
without making improvement to the functionality of a computer is not a significantly
more.
Claims 1, 13, 20 and 26 (independent claims) recites additional elements of “ a computer implemented”, “design tool” , “modelling tool”, and “processing unit”. This additional elements are used as a tool to perform the abstract idea of predicting a mechanical property of a composite element using a computer or software as a tool. As it is claimed in the claims there is no improvement to the computer or software is recited, so it is not significantly more.
Generally the independent claims recites abstract idea based on the above analysis and lets see if there is any significant more claim limitations exist for the dependent claims.
Claims 2 and 15:
wherein the mechanical property is at least one property selected from the group
consisting of solid volume fraction; relative stiffness; damping properties; characteristics of stress vs. strain curve… it further specifies the type of mechanical properties so other than narrowing the abstract idea no new additional element is recited.
Claim 3:
wherein step b) comprises at least one geometric analysis, wherein the geometric analysis comprises determining packing density and/or layer distance, this claim limitation further defines the abstract idea of geometric analysis which can be performed by a human mind using mathematical concepts.
Claim 4:
wherein the input parameter set comprises at least one parameter selected from the group consisting of shape of single nodes; … it further define the type of data used - (insignificant extra solution activity - data gathering such as such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)).
Claim 5:
wherein the input parameter set comprises at least one parameter defining a
stacking of the layers of the composite element… it further define the type of data used - (insignificant extra solution activity - data gathering such as such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)).
Claim 6:
wherein the design tool comprises a computer-aided design (CAD) tool. This claim limitation further specifies the type of design tool used and the design tool (CAD) is considered as additional element but since there is not improvement claimed in the software or the computer as it was analyzed above on Step 2B, it is not significantly more.
Claim 7:
wherein the numerical simulation is a Finite-Element-Method (FEM) simulation,
wherein the FEM simulation is a voxel-based FEM simulation. This claim limitation further specifies the abstract idea since the human mind can perform the simulation as it was analyzed in claim 1.
Claim 8:
wherein the method comprises providing the determined mechanical property ((insignificant extra- solution activity – data gathering, such as 'outputting data'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)
Claims 9, 17, and 23:
wherein the providing the determined mechanical property comprises one or
more of displaying, storing, providing to an interface, and transmitting to another device. ((insignificant extra- solution activity – data gathering, such as 'outputting data'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)
Claims 10 and 24:
wherein the method comprises controlling the at least one mechanical property of at least one composite element, wherein at least one process parameter for manufacturing the composite element is set to the determined mechanical properties and/or depending on the determined mechanical properties. This claim limitation further defines abstract idea of mental process since a human mind can adjust mechanical property and use the determined mechanical value to manufacture.
Claims 11, 25, 28 and 29:
wherein the method comprises controlling the at least one mechanical property
of at least one composite element selected from the group consisting of a damping element… it further specifies the abstract idea by further narrowing the composite element where a mechanical property is selected to be adjusted. So there is no any additional element which is significantly more. Claims 25, 28 and 29 are also in the same scope as of claim 11.
Claims 12 and 19:
A computer program for predicting at least one mechanical property of at least one composite element, … it is merely using of a computer or software as a tool to perform the abstract idea . No improvement was recited in the program used or the computer it self , see Step 2B for more.
Claim 14:
wherein the method comprises repeating steps i) to iv), wherein the determined target parameter set is used as input parameter set … this limitation is also a mental process since the steps i) to iv) is analyzed above on claim 13 as abstract idea, a human mind can perform this step iteratively and used the output result as input.
Claim 15:
wherein the target criterion comprises at least one value of a physical property selected from the group consisting of solid volume fraction; relative stiffness …. Further defines the type of data used, so it is data gathering.
Claims 16:
wherein the optimization step comprises determining the target parameter
set by applying an optimizing algorithm in terms of the target criterion on a trained machine-learning model, wherein the machine-learning model comprises one or more
selected from the group consisting of linear regression… it further defines abstract idea of optimization and a human mind can perform by using a any of the recited algorithm
Claim 18:
wherein the method further comprises prototyping the target composite
element having the layout determined in step iv). ((insignificant extra- solution activity – data gathering, such as 'outputting data'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)
Claim 21:
wherein the control system is configured for performing the method
according to claim 1, claim 1 is analyses above and it is an abstract idea, so using a system to perform the abstract idea is not significantly more.
Claim 22:
wherein the control system comprises at least one output unit configured
for providing the determined mechanical property. Using tools to display out put information is not significantly more . (insignificant extra- solution activity – data gathering, such as 'outputting data'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)
Claim 27:
wherein the layout designing system is configured for performing the method according to claim 13. As it is explained on claim 13, claim 13 recites abstract idea with out any additional element which is significantly more, so using a layout designing system to perform the abstract idea is not also significantly more.
Finally, based on the above claim by claim analysis and claims a whole, does not recite any additional element which is significantly more than the claimed invention. The claim is merely a mental process of computing a mechanical property using a computer/software and merely using a computer /software is not significantly more than abstract idea since they is not improvement in the computer/software is recited.
Therefore claims 1-29 is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6 -10, 12-19, 26-27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alwattar, Tahseen A., and Ahsan Mian. "Development of an elastic material model for BCC lattice cell structures using finite element analysis and neural networks approaches." Journal of composites science 3.2 (2019): 33 in the view of PRISSOK FRANK (WO 2018172287 A1).
As of claim 1, Alwattar teaches A computer implemented method for predicting at least one mechanical property of at least one composite element
wherein each layer comprises a network having repeating units which comprise nodes and edges, (Figure 3. Micromechanics technique design (a) BCC unit cell (b) BCC lattice structure. Figure 3. Micromechanics technique design (a) BCC unit cell (b) BCC lattice structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
487
449
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Node and edge as pillar-node network is represented as shown above on figure 3, (b).
providing at least one input parameter set, wherein the input parameter set comprises a plurality of parameters defining properties of each of the single layers; ( section 3.1 “Material and Physical Parameters” In the scope of the parametric study, the strut diameters are 1.0, 1.5, 2, and 2.5 mm, the dimensions of a single unit cell sizes are 2.5 × 2.5 × 2.5, 5 × 5× 5, 7.5 × 7.5 × 7.5, and 10 × 10 × 10mm,andaspectratios (diameter truss/ unit cell length) are 0.1, 0.1333, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25, 0.2666, 0.3, 0.3333, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.8, and 1).
d) determining at least one geometric model of the composite element based on the input parameter set using at least one design tool; and ( section 3.1 “Material and Physical Parameters”, In this step, the FEA software Abaqus Explicit 2017 [15] was used to model the compression and shear test of a BCC unit cell configuration (Figure 3a) for different strut diameters and cell sizes within the elastic limit to predict equivalent solid properties of the lattice structure).
determining at least one mechanical property of the geometric model of the composite element by using at least one numerical simulation, wherein the mechanical property comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of tension property, pressure property, shear property, temperature property, and a combination thereof (section 3.1 “Material and Physical Parameters”, In this step, the FEA software Abaqus Explicit 2017 [15] was used to model the compression and shear test of a BCC unit cell configuration (Figure 3a) for different strut diameters and cell sizes within the elastic limit to predict equivalent solid properties of the lattice structure… Section 3.3 “Applied Load and Boundary conditions”, In order to capture the behavior of the entire lattice structure based on the analysis of the BCC unit cell, it is important to select appropriate boundary conditions. For shear modulus simulation, the model is placed between two plates, thereby the upper and lower faces are clamped to those plates
PNG
media_image2.png
180
1226
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Alwattar does not explicitly teach a composite element which comprise at least two layer wherein each layer has a volume, a longitudinal extension and a maximum height h vertical to the longitudinal extension and comprises a material with cellular structure, wherein the layers are stacked.
While Prissok teaches a composite element which comprise at least two layer wherein each layer has a volume, a longitudinal extension and a maximum height h vertical to the longitudinal extension and comprises a material with cellular structure, wherein the layers are stacked (abstract, The present invention relates to the use of a composite element for a shoe sole, wherein the composite element comprises at least two elements, wherein each element has a body, a longitudinal extension and a height h vertical to the longitudinal extension and comprises a polymeric material with cellular structure, wherein the elements are at least in partial contact parallel to the longitudinal extension and have a closed surface (skin) at least in the contact area).
Alwattar and Prissok is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since they teaches determining of a mechanical properties and a composite element. Therefore it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate Prissok’s teaching of a composite element with two layers into Alwattar to determine a mechanical properties of the composite element.
The motivation would have been By using the equivalent material properties from NN, a larger and more complicated BCC LCS with any arbitrary cell size, strut diameter, and type of material can be computationally investigated using FEA with considerably less computational time. It was demonstrated that the computational time and analysis speed of lattice structure could be reduced from several hours to a few minutes (Alwattar. Conclusion).
As of claim 2, the modified model teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and Alwattar also teaches wherein the mechanical property is at least one property selected from the group consisting of solid volume fraction; relative stiffness; damping properties; characteristics of stress vs. strain curve; hardness; energy dissipation; tensile properties; properties under compression; properties under shear; properties under complex deformations; anisotropy; and thermal extension (Section 3.5 “Data collection”, Both the shear and compression FEA models are run and stress-strain curves are plotted. Load is obtained from the reaction force as displacement is applied on the top plate. Stress is calculated by dividing load with area of a unit cell face L2. Strain is calculated from applied displacement divided by cell height L).
As of claim 4, the modified model teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and Alwattar also teaches wherein the input parameter set comprises at least one parameter selected from the group consisting of shape of single nodes; position of nodes within the single layer; position of edges within the layer and/or with respect to nodes; thickness of nodes; length of edges; thickness of edges; and contact area between single layers(section 3.1 “Material and physical Parameters”, In the scope of the parametric study, the strut diameters are 1.0, 1.5, 2, and 2.5 mm, the dimensions of a single unit cell sizes are 2.5 × 2.5 × 2.5, 5 × 5× 5, 7.5 × 7.5 × 7.5, and 10 × 10 × 10 mm, and aspect ratios (diameter truss/ unit cell length) are 0.1, 0.1333, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25, 0.2666, 0.3, 0.3333, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.8, and 1).
As of claim 6 , the modified model teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and Alwattar also teaches wherein the design tool comprises a computer-aided design (CAD) tool (Section 3.2 “Design and mesh Generation”, The BCC unit cell and lattice structures are designed and meshed using the micromechanics software Abaqus 6.17… Section 5. “Experimental Procedure” , The model was first designed using the CAD software Solid works (Figure 11a) and was saved in .STL forma).
As of claim 7, the modified model teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and Alwattar also teaches wherein the numerical simulation is a Finite-Element-Method (FEM) simulation, wherein the FEM simulation is a voxel-based FEM simulation( Section 3.2 “Design and mesh Generation”, Using the Micromechanics technique in Abaqus, Hexahedral mesh (element type C3D8R) is used for all models to generate the mesh. To accomplish FEA with high performance, both mesh sensitivity analysis and type of mesh generation are adopted).
As of claim 8, the modified model teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and Alwattar also teaches wherein the method comprises providing the determined mechanical property (table 3,
PNG
media_image3.png
189
1203
media_image3.png
Greyscale
)
As of claim 9, the modified model teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and Alwattar also teaches wherein the providing the determined mechanical property comprises one or more of displaying, storing, providing to an interface, and transmitting to another device ( section 5,”Experimental Procedure” The model was first designed using the CAD software Solid works (Figure 11a) and was saved in .STL format. The .STL file was then processed with the 3D printer software Stratasys Catalys
PNG
media_image4.png
594
1146
media_image4.png
Greyscale
)
As cited above the FEA software Abaqus Explicit 2017, and design is saved as .STL format, and it is obvious that a computer is used to perform this research and a computer inherits a memory, processor, its output is also displayed as a graph and file is transmitted to a printer.
As of claim 10, the modified model teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and Alwattar also teaches wherein the method comprises controlling the at least one mechanical property of at least one composite element, wherein at least one process parameter for manufacturing the composite element is set to the determined mechanical properties and/or depending on the determined mechanical properties (Section 3.4, “Material Properties”, The default temperature settings used for the model material were as follows. The printer head temperature of 300 °C and the chamber temperature of 77 °C were maintained. Layer thickness was set to 0.254 mm…Section 4.2 “Training and Testing Patterns Used”, The parameters represented by the input (training data) vector elements of raw material include elastic modulus (𝐸), Poisson’s ratio (𝜈), strut diameters (𝑑), and relative dimension (𝑑/𝐿). So, the total number of training input isotropic material will be four parameters. The training output parameters are equivalent properties of BCC lattice unit cell from FEA, which include equivalent elastic modulus 𝐸𝑒 in x, y, and z direction, Poisson’s ratio 𝜐𝑒, and shear modulus 𝐺𝑒).
As of claim 12, the modified model teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Alwattar also teaches A computer program for predicting at least one mechanical property of at least one composite element, configured for causing a computer or a computer network to fully or partially perform the method according to claim 1, when executed on the computer or the computer network, wherein the computer program is configured to perform at least one of steps a) to c) of the method (Section 4, “Neural network for Equivalent material model”, In this research the surrogate intelligence model is used to predict the equivalent mechanical properties of the lattice structure using FEA results. MATLAB software (R2017, The Mathworks, Inc., Natick, MA, USA) is used to model the neural network prediction).
As of claim 13, Alwattar teaches A computer implemented method for determining a layout of at least , (Section 2 “Methodology Strategy”, The BCC lattice used in step (d) is 3D printed and tested under compression to compare its load-displacement behavior with that obtained from both solid and lattice models obtained in part (d)).
retrieving at least one target criterion for a target composite element ( section 4 , “Neural Network for Equivalent material Model”, To demonstrate the success of the neural NN in predicting accurate equivalent mechanical properties, some of the ten and the remaining six data sets are used for testing), predicting accurate equivalent mechanical property is considered as a target criterion.
predicting at least one mechanical property of a start composite element using a method according to claim 1, wherein properties of each of the single layers of the start composite element are defined by the input parameter set; ( section 3.1 “Material and Physical Parameters”, In this step, the FEA software Abaqus Explicit 2017 [15] was used to model the compression and shear test of a BCC unit cell configuration (Figure 3a) for different strut diameters and cell sizes within the elastic limit to predict equivalent solid properties of the lattice structure).
at least one optimization step, wherein the optimization step comprises determining a target parameter set for the target composite element by comparing the determined mechanical property with the target criterion, wherein the target parameter is set by adapting the input parameter set depending on the comparison in case the target criterion is not fulfilled, or by setting the input parameter set as target parameter set in case the target criterion is fulfilled: and ( section 3.1 “Material and Physical Parameter”.. In this step, the FEA software Abaqus Explicit 2017 [15] was used to model the compression and shear test of a BCC unit cell configuration (Figure 3a) for different strut diameters and cell sizes within the elastic limit to predict equivalent solid properties of the lattice structure…In the scope of the parametric study, the strut diameters are 1.0, 1.5, 2, and 2.5 mm, the dimensions of a single unit cell sizes are 2.5 × 2.5 × 2.5, 5 × 5× 5, 7.5 × 7.5 × 7.5, and 10 × 10 × 10mm,andaspectratios (diameter truss/ unit cell length) are 0.1, 0.1333, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25, 0.2666, 0.3, 0.3333, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.8, and 1… section 4.2, “The NN Model Used”, One of the significant rules that is used to select the number of nodes, the maximum error between the actual value (Target) and both training patterns and testing patterns (output NN) should be small as possible…Section 6, “Finite Element Modeling of LCS and equivalent Solid”, Figure 12 shows the optimized discretized models of a 25 mm × 25 mm × 20 mm LCS with 5 mm × 5 mm × 5 mm unit cell having strut diameter of 1 mm (Figure 12a) and a 25 mm × 25 mm × 20 mm solid (Figure 12b). As it is cited above Alwattar used different input parameters, and on section 4 the NN used to optimize the model by comparing performance parameter versus error and the optimized parameter is used on section 6 based on the optimization step.
providing the determined target parameter set as layout for the composite element (section 5,”Experimental Procedure” Three specimens were fabricated for the same model and the support material was removed from the printed samples using Stratasys cleaning apparatus, SCA, 1200HT parts [21]. The completed final sample for testing is shown in Figure 11b).
Alwattar does not explicitly teach composite element comprising at least two layers, wherein each layer comprises a network having repeating units which comprise nodes and edges, wherein each layer has a volume, a longitudinal extension and a maximum height h vertical to the longitudinal extension and comprises a material with cellular structure.
While Prissok teaches composite element comprising at least two layers wherein each layer comprises a network having repeating units which comprise nodes and edges, wherein each layer has a volume, a longitudinal extension and a maximum height h vertical to the longitudinal extension and comprises a material with cellular structure, (abstract, The present invention relates to the use of a composite element for a shoe sole, wherein the composite element comprises at least two elements, wherein each element has a body, a longitudinal extension and a height h vertical to the longitudinal extension and comprises a polymeric material with cellular structure, wherein the elements are at least in partial contact parallel to the longitudinal extension and have a closed surface (skin) at least in the contact area).
Alwattar and Prissok is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since they teaches determining of a mechanical properties and a composite element. Therefore it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate Prissok’s teaching of a composite element with two layers into Alwattar to determine a mechanical properties of the composite element.
The motivation would have been By using the equivalent material properties from NN, a larger and more complicated BCC LCS with any arbitrary cell size, strut diameter, and type of material can be computationally investigated using FEA with considerably less computational time. It was demonstrated that the computational time and analysis speed of lattice structure could be reduced from several hours to a few minutes (Alwattar. Conclusion).
As of claim 14, the modified model teaches all the limitation of claim 13, and Alwattar also teaches wherein the method comprises repeating steps i) to iv), wherein the determined target parameter set is used as input parameter set (Section 6, “Finite Element Modeling of LCS and equivalent Solid”, Figure 12 shows the optimized discretized models of a 25 mm × 25 mm × 20 mm LCS with 5 mm × 5 mm × 5 mm unit cell having strut diameter of 1 mm (Figure 12a) and a 25 mm × 25 mm × 20 mm solid (Figure 12b)). As it cited the optimized parameter is used as in output to generate the output layout and as it is listed above on claim 13 the NN is performed iteratively to find optimized parameter to minimize the equivalent performance of NN predictions (e.g., E, G) versus error in FEM results, so it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill to repeat step i) to iv) based on Alwattar and Prissonk’s teaching.
As of claim 15, the modified model teaches all the limitations of claim 13, and Alwattar also teaches wherein the target criterion comprises at least one value of a physical property selected from the group consisting of solid volume fraction; relative stiffness; damping properties; characteristics of stress vs. strain curve; hardness; energy dissipation; tensile properties; properties under compression; properties under shear; properties under complex deformations; anisotropy; and thermal extension (Section 3.5 “Data collection”, Both the shear and compression FEA models are run and stress-strain curves are plotted. Load is obtained from the reaction force as displacement is applied on the top plate. Stress is calculated by dividing load with area of a unit cell face L2. Strain is calculated from applied displacement divided by cell height L).
As of claim 16, the modified model teaches all the limitations of claim 13 and Alwattar also teaches wherein the optimization step comprises determining the target parameter set by applying an optimizing algorithm in terms of the target criterion on a trained machine-learning model, wherein the machine-learning model comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of linear regression, logistic regression, random forest, naive Bayes classifications, nearest neighbors, neural networks, convolutional neural networks, generative adversarial networks, support vector machines, and gradient boosting algorithms (Section 4.2 “The NN model used”, In this research, all the algorithms given in Table 2 are tested. Comparing different algorithms, the Resilient Backpropagation (trainrp) algorithm gives the best performance as the mean square error (MSE) is the least at a particular number of epochs (number of iteration), as shown in Figure 10. It is clear from Figure 10 that minimum number of epoch is 100 gives accurate results or least MSE
PNG
media_image5.png
636
1152
media_image5.png
Greyscale
).
As of claim 17, the modified model teaches all the limitations of claim 13 and Alwattar also teaches wherein the providing the determined target parameter set comprises one or more of displaying, storing, providing to an interface, and transmitting to another device ( section 5,”Experimental Procedure” The model was first designed using the CAD software Solid works (Figure 11a) and was saved in .STL format. The .STL file was then processed with the 3D printer software Stratasys Catalys
PNG
media_image4.png
594
1146
media_image4.png
Greyscale
)
As cited above the FEA software Abaqus Explicit 2017, and design is saved as .STL format, and it is obvious that a computer is used to perform this research and a computer inherits a memory, processor, its output is also displayed as a graph and file is transmitted to a printer.
As of claim 18, the modified model teaches all the limitations of claim 13 and Alwattar also teaches wherein the method further comprises prototyping the target composite element having the layout determined in step iv) (section 5,”Experimental Procedure”, To validate the BCC unit cell FEA and NN results, 25 mm × 25 mm × 20 mm LCS was 3D printed and tested under compression. The dimensions of a single unit cell are 5 mm × 5 mm × 5 mm with strut diameter of 1 mm. The model was first designed using the CAD software Solid works (Figure 11a) and was saved in).
As of claim 19, the modified model teaches all the limitations of claim 13 and Alwattar also teaches A computer program for determining a layout of at least one composite element, configured for causing a computer or a computer network to fully or partially perform the method according to claim 13, when executed on the computer or the computer network, wherein the computer program is configured to perform at least steps i) to iv) of the method (section 5,”Experimental Procedure”, The model was first designed using the CAD software Solidworks (Figure 11a) and was saved in .STL format. The .STL file was then processed with the 3D printer software Stratasys Catalyst).
As of claim 26, Alwattar teaches An automated layout designing system for determining a layout of at least one
wherein each layer comprises a network having repeating units which comprise nodes and edges,
PNG
media_image1.png
487
449
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) Node and edge as pillar-node network.
at least one communication interface configured for retrieving at least one target criterion for a target composite element and for receiving at least one input parameter set comprising a plurality of parameters defining properties of each of the single layers;( section 3.1 “Material and Physical Parameters”, In the scope of the parametric study, the strut diameters are 1.0, 1.5, 2, and 2.5 mm, the dimensions of a single unit cell sizes are 2.5 × 2.5 × 2.5, 5 × 5× 5, 7.5 × 7.5 × 7.5, and 10 × 10 × 10mm,andaspectratios (diameter truss/ unit cell length) are 0.1, 0.1333, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25, 0.2666, 0.3, 0.3333, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.8, and 1, … section 4 , “Neural Network for Equivalent material Model”, To demonstrate the success of the neural NN in predicting accurate equivalent mechanical properties, some of the ten and the remaining six data sets are used for testing), predicting accurate equivalent mechanical property is considered as a target criterion.
at least one material modelling tool configured for determining at least one geometric model of the composite element from the input parameter set; ( section 3.1 “Material and Physical Parameters”, In this step, the FEA software Abaqus Explicit 2017 [15] was used to model the compression and shear test of a BCC unit cell configuration (Figure 3a) for different strut diameters and cell sizes within the elastic limit to predict equivalent solid properties of the lattice structure).
at least one numerical simulation configured for determining at least one mechanical property of the geometric model of the composite element, wherein the mechanical property comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of tension property, pressure property, shear property, temperature property, and a combination thereof; ( section 3.1 “Material and Physical Parameters”, In this step, the FEA software Abaqus Explicit 2017 [15] was used to model the compression and shear test of a BCC unit cell configuration (Figure 3a) for different strut diameters and cell sizes within the elastic limit to predict equivalent solid properties of the lattice structure … Section 3.3 “Applied Load and Boundary conditions” In order to capture the behavior of the entire lattice structure based on the analysis of the BCC unit cell, it is important to select appropriate boundary conditions. For shear modulus simulation, the model is placed between two plates, thereby the upper and lower faces are clamped to those plates
PNG
media_image2.png
180
1226
media_image2.png
Greyscale
).
at least one processing unit configured for performing at least one optimization step, wherein the optimization step comprises determining a target parameter set for the target composite element by comparing the determined mechanical property with the target criterion, wherein the target parameter is set by adapting the input parameter set depending on the comparison in case the target criterion is not fulfilled, or by setting the input parameter set as target parameter set in case the target criterion is fulfilled; and (( section 3.1 “Material and Physical Parameter”.. In this step, the FEA software Abaqus Explicit 2017 [15] was used to model the compression and shear test of a BCC unit cell configuration (Figure 3a) for different strut diameters and cell sizes within the elastic limit to predict equivalent solid properties of the lattice structure…In the scope of the parametric study, the strut diameters are 1.0, 1.5, 2, and 2.5 mm, the dimensions of a single unit cell sizes are 2.5 × 2.5 × 2.5, 5 × 5× 5, 7.5 × 7.5 × 7.5, and 10 × 10 × 10mm,andaspectratios (diameter truss/ unit cell length) are 0.1, 0.1333, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25, 0.2666, 0.3, 0.3333, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.8, and 1… section 4.2, “The NN Model Used”, One of the significant rules that is used to select the number of nodes, the maximum error between the actual value (Target) and both training patterns and testing patterns (output NN) should be small as possible…Section 6, “Finite Element Modeling of LCS and equivalent Solid”, Figure 12 shows the optimized discretized models of a 25 mm × 25 mm × 20 mm LCS with 5 mm × 5 mm × 5 mm unit cell having strut diameter of 1 mm (Figure 12a) and a 25 mm × 25 mm × 20 mm solid (Figure 12b). As it is cited above Alwattar used different input parameters, and on section 4 the NN used to optimize the model by comparing performance parameter versus error and the optimized parameter is used on section 6 based on the optimization step.
at least one output unit configured for providing the determined target parameter set as layout for the composite element ( section 5,”Experimental Procedure”
Three specimens were fabricated for the same model and the support material was removed from the printed samples using Stratasys cleaning apparatus, SCA, 1200HT parts [21]. The completed final sample for testing is shown in Figure 11b).
Alwattar does not explicitly teach composite element comprising at least two layers, wherein each layer has a volume, a longitudinal extension and a maximum height h vertical to the longitudinal extension and comprises a material with cellular structure, wherein the layers are stacked, wherein the control system comprises
While Prissok teaches composite element comprising at least two layers, wherein each layer has a volume, a longitudinal extension and a maximum height h vertical to the longitudinal extension and comprises a material with cellular structure, wherein the layers are stacked, wherein the control system comprises (abstract, the present invention relates to the use of a composite element for a shoe sole, wherein the composite element comprises at least two elements, wherein each element has a body, a longitudinal extension and a height h vertical to the longitudinal extension and comprises a polymeric material with cellular structure, wherein the elements are at least in partial contact parallel to the longitudinal extension and have a closed surface (skin) at least in the contact area).
Alwattar and Prissok is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since they teaches determining of a mechanical properties and a composite element. Therefore it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate Prissok’s teaching of a composite element with two layers into Alwattar to determine a mechanical properties of the composite element.
The motivation would have been By using the equivalent material properties from NN, a larger and more complicated BCC LCS with any arbitrary cell size, strut diameter, and type of material can be computationally investigated using FEA with considerably less computational time. It was demonstrated that the computational time and analysis speed of lattice structure could be reduced from several hours to a few minutes (Alwattar. Conclusion).
As of claim 27, the modified model of Alwattar-Prissok teaches all the limitations of claim 26, and claim 13 and Alwattar also teaches the layout designing system as it is cited above on claim 26, so it is obvious that the designing system is also perform according to claim 26, since the modified model of Alwattar-Prissok teaches all the limitations of claim 13.
As of claim 29, the modified model teaches all the limitations of claim 26, and Prissok also teaches the method comprising using the system for designing a layout of a composite element selected from the group consisting of a damping element, a mattress or part of a mattress, a furniture or flooring element, an element of automotive industry, and a body protector (page 10, line 35, 42, The present invention also relates to a composite element, obtained or obtainable by the method described above. The present invention also relates to the use of a composite element as disclosed above or of a composite element obtainable or obtained according to the process as disclosed above as a damping element, preferably as damper for seismic vibration control of constructions, preferably buildings or bridges. The present invention also relates to the use of a composite element as disclosed above or of a composite element obtainable or obtained according to the process as disclosed above as a mattress or part of a mattress).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alwattar, Tahseen A., and Ahsan Mian. "Development of an elastic material model for BCC lattice cell structures using finite element analysis and neural networks approaches." Journal of composites science 3.2 (2019): 33 in the view of PRISSOK FRANK (WO 2018172287 A1), further in the view of Berger; Jonathan ( US 10696009 B2).
As of claim 3, the modified model teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but it does not explicitly teaches wherein step b) comprises at least one geometric analysis, wherein the geometric analysis comprises determining packing density and/or layer distance.
While Berge teaches wherein step b) comprises at least one geometric analysis, wherein the geometric analysis comprises determining packing density and/or layer distance (Col.2 line 58-65, The dimensions of the cell walls of some embodiments of the unit cell may have a ratio of √3 for the thickness of the cells walls of the cubic wall geometry to the thickness of the cell walls of said tetrahedral cell geometry. In some such embodiments, the geometry of the unit cell is determined by selecting one of the thickness of the cells walls of the cubic wall geometry, the thickness of the cell walls of the tetrahedral cell geometry, or the relative density of the unit cell).
Berge is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it teaches a finite element analysis for engineering stress for embodiments of the unit cell under a variety of experimental conditions. Therefore it would be obvious to try for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determining packing density by using Berge’s teaching of determining relative density in the modified model.
The motivation would have been to rise high performance design by calculating properties of material using finite element (FE) models. Model results allow for the visualization of stress and strain energy distributions. Through these, insight is gained into the morphological features that give rise to high performance designs. (Berge, Col. 8 line 4- 20).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alwattar, Tahseen A., and Ahsan Mian. "Development of an elastic material model for BCC lattice cell structures using finite element analysis and neural networks approaches." Journal of composites science 3.2 (2019): 33 in the view of PRISSOK FRANK (WO 2018172287 A1) further in the view of Malik; Muhammad Haris (US 9274036)
As of claim 5, the modified model teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but it does not explicitly teach wherein the input parameter set comprises at least one parameter defining a stacking of the layers of the composite element.
While Malik teaches wherein the input parameter set comprises at least one parameter defining a stacking of the layers of the composite element (Col. 4 line 64 -67, In such a method, the input data of the composite material may include any of the following: a stacking sequence of layers in the composite material; a layer thickness; a number of layers in the composite material; an orientation angle of the layers in the composite material; and a material composition of the layers in the composite material).
Malik is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it teaches predicting an impact resistance of a composite material. Therefore it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate Malik’s teaching of using input parameter including parameters which defines a stacking of the layer (layer thickness, orientation angle of layer) into the modified model to determine the mechanical property of a composite element.
The motivation would have been to improve the impact performance of the model by varying input parameters including thickness of the individual layer since he effect of the variation reveals that the impact performance improves as the thickness is increased, i.e., the amount of energy absorbed/dissipated decreases as the thickness is increased and vice versa (Malik, Col 37, line 16 -20).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alwattar, Tahseen A., and Ahsan Mian. "Development of an elastic material model for BCC lattice cell structures using finite element analysis and neural networks approaches." Journal of composites science 3.2 (2019): 33 in the view of PRISSOK FRANK (WO 2018172287 A1) further in the view of Xie, Ruinan, Chad Ulven, and Bashir Khoda. "Design and manufacturing of variable stiffness mattress." Procedia Manufacturing 26 (2018): 132-139.
As of claim 11, the modified model teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but the modified model does not explicitly teach wherein the method comprises controlling the at least one mechanical property of at least one composite element selected from the group consisting of a damping element, a mattress or part of a mattress, a furniture or flooring element, an element of automotive industry, and a body protector.
While Xie teaches wherein the method comprises controlling the at least one mechanical property of at least one composite element selected from the group consisting of a damping element, a mattress or part of a mattress, a furniture or flooring element, an element of automotive industry, and a body protector (Section 1, “introduction”, In this paper, a systematic approach is proposed to design a customized mattress with cellular structure considering the body load distribution to provide uniform supports. The methodology of designing variable stiffness mattress is shown as roadmap in Figure 1. An image analysis technique is applied to quantify the body load distribution in pixel-sized level. And voxelization is introduced to determine the cell parameters resulting controlled spatial stiffness following the body contour).
Xie is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it focus on design and manufacturing of mattress with variable mechanical property. Therefore it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate Xie’s teaching of controlling mechanical property of a mattress into the modified model to design comfortable composite element.
The motivation would have been to create controlled-performance based cellular structure which optimized the mechanical performance of the structure and a topology design of variable performance cellular structure is achieved to enhance the performance and material efficiency. This makes the topology optimization become an effective approach on enhance cellular structures behaviors (Xie, “conclusion”).
Claims 20 -24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alwattar, Tahseen A., and Ahsan Mian. "Development of an elastic material model for BCC lattice cell structures using finite element analysis and neural networks approaches." Journal of composites science 3.2 (2019): 33 in the view of PRISSOK FRANK (WO 2018172287 A1) further in the view of Gilbert; Anthony K (US 9770873 B2).
As of claim 20, Alwattar teaches wherein each layer comprises a network having repeating units which comprise nodes and edges, (Figure 3. Micromechanics technique design (a) BCC unit cell (b) BCC lattice structure. Figure 3. Micromechanics technique design (a) BCC unit cell (b) BCC lattice structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
487
449
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) Node and edge as pillar-node network is shown above on Fig. 3 (b).
at least one communication interface configured for receiving at least one input parameter set comprising a plurality of parameters defining properties of each of the single layers (112) ( section 3.1 “Material and Physical Parameters”, In the scope of the parametric study, the strut diameters are 1.0, 1.5, 2, and 2.5 mm, the dimensions of a single unit cell sizes are 2.5 × 2.5 × 2.5, 5 × 5× 5, 7.5 × 7.5 × 7.5, and 10 × 10 × 10mm,andaspectratios (diameter truss/ unit cell length) are 0.1, 0.1333, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25, 0.2666, 0.3, 0.3333, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.8, and 1).
at least one design tool configured for determining at least one geometric model of the composite element based on the input parameter set; and (section 3.1 “Material and Physical Parameters”, In this step, the FEA software Abaqus Explicit 2017 [15] was used to model the compression and shear test of a BCC unit cell configuration (Figure 3a) for different strut diameters and cell sizes within the elastic limit to predict equivalent solid properties of the lattice structure).
at least one numerical simulation configured for determining a mechanical property of the geometric model of the composite element, wherein the mechanical property comprises one or more of tension property selected from the group consisting of pressure property, shear property temperature property, and a combination thereof (section 3.1 “Material and Physical Parameters”, In this step, the FEA software Abaqus Explicit 2017 [15] was used to model the compression and shear test of a BCC unit cell configuration (Figure 3a) for different strut diameters and cell sizes within the elastic limit to predict equivalent solid properties of the lattice structure…Section 3.3 “Applied Load and Boundary conditions”, In order to capture the behavior of the entire lattice structure based on the analysis of the BCC unit cell, it is important to select appropriate boundary conditions. For shear modulus simulation, the model is placed between two plates, thereby the upper and lower faces are clamped to those plates
PNG
media_image2.png
180
1226
media_image2.png
Greyscale
)
Alwattar does not explicitly teach An automated control system for predicting at least one mechanical property of at least one composite element comprising at least two layers, wherein each layer has a volume, a longitudinal extension and a maximum height h vertical to the longitudinal extension and comprises a material with cellular structure, wherein the layers are stacked, wherein the control system comprises.
While Prissok teaches composite element comprising at least two layers, wherein each layer has a volume, a longitudinal extension and a maximum height h vertical to the longitudinal extension and comprises a material with cellular structure, wherein the layers are stacked, wherein the control system comprises (abstract, the present invention relates to the use of a composite element for a shoe sole, wherein the composite element comprises at least two elements, wherein each element has a body, a longitudinal extension and a height h vertical to the longitudinal extension and comprises a polymeric material with cellular structure, wherein the elements are at least in partial contact parallel to the longitudinal extension and have a closed surface (skin) at least in the contact area).
Alwattar and Prissok is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since they teaches determining of a mechanical properties and a composite element. Therefore it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate Prissok’s teaching of a composite element with two layers into Alwattar to determine a mechanical properties of the composite element.
The motivation would have been By using the equivalent material properties from NN, a larger and more complicated BCC LCS with any arbitrary cell size, strut diameter, and type of material can be computationally investigated using FEA with considerably less computational time. It was demonstrated that the computational time and analysis speed of lattice structure could be reduced from several hours to a few minutes (Alwattar. Conclusion).
The modified model does not explicitly teach an automated control system for predicting at least one mechanical property of at least one composite element.
While Gilbert teaches an automated control system for predicting at least one mechanical property of at least one composite element (abstract, iteratively adjust the parameters, until an optimum set of parameters is obtained that achieves one or more predetermined margins of safety, and that achieves optimization of the composite laminate structure; and generate an output file for creating a layup, according to the parameters).
Gilbert is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it focus on optimizing composite laminate structure. Therefore it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Gilbert’s teaching of control system for adjusting parameters for optimize composite laminate structure to the modified model in order to use a control system for predicting a mechanical properties as Alwattar teaches.
The motivation would have been to create optimized composite laminate structure by iteratively adjust the parameters, until an optimum set of parameters is obtained that achieves one or more predetermined margins of safety, and that achieves optimization of the composite laminate structure (Gilbert, abstract).
As of claim 21, the modified model of Alwattar- Prissok - Gilbert teaches all the limitations of claim 20, and Alwattar- Prissok also teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as it is cited above in claim 1, so as of claim 21, it would be obvious to use the control system that Gilbert teaches to perform the method according to claim 1.
As claim 22, the modified model teaches all the limitation of claim 20, and Alwattar also teaches wherein the control system comprises at least one output unit configured for providing the determined mechanical property (abstract, The input data of NN are bulk material properties and output data are equivalent solid mechanical properties…section 7, “Result and Discussion”, As the equivalent mechanical properties are obtained after training of NN using the outcomes of unit cell FEA models, the results of the NN model are supposed to approach that of FEA. Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8 show elasticity modulus Ee, Poisson’s ratio νe, and shear modulus Ge, respectively. The figures include both the lattice cell FEA results (indicated by solid lines) and the NN output or random tasting data (indicated by discrete points)). As it cited above the output properties are provided as a graph and it is obvious that a computer is used since a software was cited in the research so, computer monitor can be output unit.
As of claim 23, the modified model teaches all the limitations of claim 20 and Alwattar also teaches wherein the providing the determined mechanical property comprises one or more step selected from the group consisting of displaying, storing, providing to an interface, and transmitting to another device (( section 5,”Experimental Procedure” The model was first designed using the CAD software Solid works (Figure 11a) and was saved in .STL format. The .STL file was then processed with the 3D printer software Stratasys Catalys
PNG
media_image4.png
594
1146
media_image4.png
Greyscale
)
As cited above the FEA software Abaqus Explicit 2017, and design is saved as .STL format, and it is obvious that a computer is used to perform this research and a computer inherits a memory, processor, its output is also displayed as a graph and file is transmitted to a printer.
As of claim 24, the modified model teaches all the limitations of claim 20, and Alwattar also teaches wherein the control system is configured for controlling the at least one mechanical property of at least one composite element, wherein the control system is configured for setting at least one process parameter for manufacturing the composite element to the determined mechanical properties and/or depending on the determined mechanical properties ( Section 3.4, “Material Properties”, The default temperature settings used for the model material were as follows. The printer head temperature of 300 °C and the chamber temperature of 77 °C were maintained. Layer thickness was set to 0.254 mm…Section 4.2 “Training and Testing Patterns Used”, The parameters represented by the input (training data) vector elements of raw material include elastic modulus (𝐸), Poisson’s ratio (𝜈), strut diameters (𝑑), and relative dimension (𝑑/𝐿). So, the total number of training input isotropic material will be four parameters. The training output parameters are equivalent properties of BCC lattice unit cell from FEA, which include equivalent elastic modulus 𝐸𝑒 in x, y, and z direction, Poisson’s ratio 𝜐𝑒, and shear modulus 𝐺𝑒).
Claims 25 and 28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alwattar, Tahseen A., and Ahsan Mian. "Development of an elastic material model for BCC lattice cell structures using finite element analysis and neural networks approaches." Journal of composites science 3.2 (2019): 33 in the view of PRISSOK FRANK (WO 2018172287 A1) in the view of Gilbert; Anthony K (US 9770873 B2) further in the view of Xie, Ruinan, Chad Ulven, and Bashir Khoda. "Design and manufacturing of variable stiffness mattress." Procedia Manufacturing 26 (2018): 132-139.
As of claim 25, the modified model Alwattar- Prissok - Gilbert teaches all the limitations of claim 20, but the modified model does not explicitly teach wherein the control system is configured for the controlling the at least one mechanical property of at least one composite element selected from the group consisting of a damping element, a mattress or part of a mattress, a furniture or flooring element, an element of automotive industry, and a body protector.
While Xie teaches wherein the control system is configured for the controlling the at least one mechanical property of at least one composite element selected from the group consisting of a damping element, a mattress or part of a mattress, a furniture or flooring element, an element of automotive industry, and a body protector.(Section 1, “introduction”, In this paper, a systematic approach is proposed to design a customized mattress with cellular structure considering the body load distribution to provide uniform supports. The methodology of designing variable stiffness mattress is shown as roadmap in Figure 1. An image analysis technique is applied to quantify the body load distribution in pixel-sized level. And voxelization is introduced to determine the cell parameters resulting controlled spatial stiffness following the body contour).
Xie is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it focus on design and manufacturing of mattress with variable mechanical property. Therefore it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate Xie’s teaching of controlling mechanical property of a mattress into the modified model to design comfortable composite element.
The motivation would have been to create controlled-performance based cellular structure which optimized the mechanical performance of the structure and a topology design of variable performance cellular structure is achieved to enhance the performance and material efficiency. This makes the topology optimization become an effective approach on enhance cellular structures behaviors (Xie, “conclusion”).
As of claim 28, the modified model of Alwattar- Prissok - Gilbert teaches all the limitations of claim 20, but it does not explicitly teach the method comprising using the control system for controlling mechanical properties of a composite element selected from the group consisting of a damping element, a mattress or part of a mattress, a furniture or flooring element, an element of automotive and a body protector.
While Xie teaches wherein the method comprises controlling the at least one mechanical property of at least one composite element selected from the group consisting of a damping element, a mattress or part of a mattress, a furniture or flooring element, an element of automotive industry, and a body protector (Section 1, “introduction”, In this paper, a systematic approach is proposed to design a customized mattress with cellular structure considering the body load distribution to provide uniform supports. The methodology of designing variable stiffness mattress is shown as roadmap in Figure 1. An image analysis technique is applied to quantify the body load distribution in pixel-sized level. And voxelization is introduced to determine the cell parameters resulting controlled spatial stiffness following the body contour).
Xie is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it focus on design and manufacturing of mattress with variable mechanical property. Therefore it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate Xie’s teaching of controlling mechanical property of a mattress into the modified model to design comfortable composite element.
The motivation would have been to create controlled-performance based cellular structure which optimized the mechanical performance of the structure and a topology design of variable performance cellular structure is achieved to enhance the performance and material efficiency. This makes the topology optimization become an effective approach on enhance cellular structures behaviors (Xie, “conclusion”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
VENKATESH; T.A. (US 20130126774 A1, Date Published, 2013-05-23) this invention is considered to be similar to the claimed invention since it focus on a piezoelectric foam formed of elastically anisotropic materials and it control mechanical and electrical loading condition to compute mechanical property.
PORTELA CARLOS M (KR 20200084358 A, Date Published 2020-07-10) this invention is considered to be similar to the claimed invention since it focus on fabrication and design of composites with architecture layers and it use finite element code Abaqus and show the complete coherence of the effective Young's modulus of the microstructure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABRHAM A. TAMIRU whose telephone number is (571)272-6987. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Pitaro can be reached 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.
/ABRHAM ALEHEGN TAMIRU/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights