DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1-9 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “mapping a finite element mesh, by using laser etching, after scaling up.” The limitation “scaling up” lacks antecedent basis in the claims. There is no scaling recited previously in the claims to which the scaling up could refer. Furthermore, the claim is unclear as to what is being scaled up. The claim is unclear as to whether the finite element is scaled up before the laser etching, by the laser etching, or if the laser etching itself is scaled up. Thus, the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C 112(b). For the purposes of compact prosecution, this limitation will be interpreted as “using laser etching to map a scaled finite element mesh onto a surface of a to-be-impacted area of a sample.”
Claim 1 further recites “measuring, after firing a bullet by light gas gun.” The limitation “after firing a bullet by light gas gun” lacks antecedent basis. There is no firing of a bullet recited previously in the claims to which the limitation could refer. Thus, Claim 1 is indefinite. For the purposes of compact prosecution, this limitation will be interpreted as “measuring the sample to obtain…”
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites “with sizes in relationship of multiples.” The term “multiples” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “multiples” 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. Furthermore, the claim is unclear as to whether “sizes in relationship of multiples” refers to the size of the physical mesh being the size of the solid mesh scaled by an integer; or if the meshes contain multiple different sized elements. Thus, the structure of the sample physical surface mesh and sample solid surface mesh in Claim 2 are indefinite.
Regarding Claims 3-6, the claims require the limitations of Claim 1, on which these claims depend, and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 7, the claim recites the following equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
91
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The ellipses in the claimed equation indicate that the equation comprises implied terms which are not shown. However, the implied terms would not be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. The claim is unclear as to whether the relative error is calculated based on only d1, d2, l1, and w1; all d1 to dn, l1 to ln, and w1 to wn; or some other combination of said terms. On the contrary, the equation for relative error of residual strain in Claim 8 similarly uses ellipses in place of explicitly listing all terms, see below:
PNG
media_image2.png
93
475
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, the equation recites ε1, ε2, and εn, and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the equation consists of all terms from ε1 to εn (the equation for relative error of residual strain is reproduced below): Therefore, the equation for relative error between the impact damage sizes is indefinite, and Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b).
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, the claims require the limitations of Claim 1, on which these claims depend, and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In light of Klosak et al. (Klosak, Maciej, Tomasz Jankowiak, Alexis Rusinek, Amine Bendarma, Piotr W. Sielicki, and Tomasz Lodygowski. "Mechanical properties of brass under impact and perforation tests for a wide range of temperatures: experimental and numerical approach." Materials 13, no. 24 (2020): 5821.), hereinafter Klosak; Tyson (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0274206 A1), hereinafter Tyson; Zhou et al. (Zhou, Honggen, Shan Liu, Guochao Li, Guizhong Tian, Ziyu Wang, and Chuhui Wang. "Machining Stress Analysis and Deformation Prediction of Connecting Rod Based on FEM and GRNN." (2018)), hereinafter Zhou; and Zhang (Chinese Pub. No. CN111859763A), hereinafter Zhang, Claim 1 would not have been anticipated or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Klosak, the closest prior art, teaches experimental and simulated impact tests, comprising step 1 [...] measuring, after firing a bullet by a light gas gun to impact a mesh area of the sample (e.g., page 5, paragraph 1 discusses using a gas gun to shoot a projectile at a brass plate), obtain the impact damage, an impact damage size, a damage profile, a surface residual strain, and a surface residual stress (e.g., page 6, Table 1 and page 9, figure 7 discuss experimental results of the impact damage), and step 2, establishing a parameterized impact finite element model (e.g., page 8, Figure and paragraph 1 discuss the finite element model and material parameters for the simulation).
However, Klosak does not teach step 3, calculating relative errors between the experimental results and simulated results, or step 4, determining whether the relative errors in step are all less than expected values.
Tyson teaches a method for measuring deformation in stamped panels, comprising step 1, mapping a finite element mesh, by using laser etching, after scaling up, onto a surface (e.g., paragraph [0046] discusses using a laser to etch circles or dots on a panel of sheet metal. Paragraph [0029] discusses comparing the dot pattern with a design’s finite element model).
However, Tyson also does not teach step 3, calculating relative errors between the experimental results and simulated results, or step 4, determining whether the relative errors in step are all less than expected values. Tyson briefly mentions error in the forming process in paragraph [0029], however Tyson does not teach calculating relative errors between measured and modeled impact damage.
Zhou teaches a method for predicting residual stress, comprising step 3, calculating relative errors (e.g., page 8, equation (4) and page 9, equation (6) disclose a MRE and RMSE for comparing the neural network predictions and finite element simulations.
However, Zhou also does not teach step 4, determining whether the relative errors in step 3 are all less than expected values. While the training of the neural network in Zhou may be analogous to the model optimization in step 4 of the instant claims, the MRE and RMSE are not calculated using impact damage information. Further, the calculated errors in Zhou compare results of an FEM simulation and neural network, not a physical experiment and FEM simulation.
Zhang teaches a method for optimizing a finite element mesh, comprising step 4, determining whether the relative errors in step 3 are all less than expected values, if exceeding the expected values, changing an optimization variable comprising an impact parameter, the material model parameter and a mesh size parameter (e.g., page 4, paragraph 3 discusses thinning and optimizing a finite element grid based on predicted geometric and physical error).
However, Zhang also does not teach wherein the errors are between a numerical simulation and the impact damage experiment. Further, Zhang also does not teach changing an optimization variable comprising an impact parameter.
In summary, the prior art listed above does not teach step 3, calculating relative errors between the impact damage size, the damage profile, the surface residual strain and the residual stress from experimental measurement and the numerically simulated impact damage size, the numerically simulated damage profile, the numerically simulated surface residual strain and the numerically simulated residual stress; and step 4, determining whether the relative errors in step 3 are all less than expected values, if exceeding the expected values, changing an optimization variable comprising an impact parameter, the material model parameter and a mesh size parameter, and repeating step 1 to step 3 until a numerical simulation result meeting accuracy requirements is obtained, in combination with the remaining limitations. While the prior art teaches individual aspects of the claimed invention, a combination of the teachings of the closest prior art above would not completely teach the limitations of instant Claim 1. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Klosak, Tyson, Zhou, and Zhang to reach the claimed invention, and the Applicant’s claimed invention defines over the prior art of record.
Dependent Claims 2-9 would be allowable for depending from independent Claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE HWA-KAI TSENG whose telephone number is (571)272-3731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9A-5P PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571) 272-3676. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.H.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights