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 .
Priority
Current application, US Application No. 18/281,060 filed on 11/13/2023, is a National Stage entry of PCT/JP2022/028288 International Filing Date: 07/21/2022, which claims foreign priority to JP 2021-162681 filed on 10/01/2021.
Examiner acknowledges that the certified copy of foreign priority document has been received. However, the certified English translation copy of the original foreign document, which is not written in English, has not been received. There is no requirement to submit certified English translation copy at this stage according to 37 CFR 1.55(g)(3). However, should the need of certified English translated copy arise according to the cases mentioned in 37 CFR 1.55(g)(3), submission may be requested in the future.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the application filed on 11/13/2023. Claims 10-17 are currently pending. Claims 1-9 are canceled and claims 10-17 are added new by applicant’s request.
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.
Claims 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. As per claim 10, claim recites “the estimated values A” in “acquire the estimated values A from the room temperature up to the predetermined temperature”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, the limitation “an estimated value A” (singular) in the preamble conflicts with the limitation “the estimated values A” (plural) in the body of the claim.
The claim also recites “the physical constant” in “determining a predicted value Ft-Δt of the (add temperature-dependent) physical constant”, “data-assimilating a measured value Yt-Δt of the physical constant”, “obtain a predicted value Ft of the physical constant”, and “data-assimilating a measured value Yt of the physical constant”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim recites “a temperature-dependent physical constant” in “an estimated value A of a temperature-dependent physical constant of a solid substance”, which may imply “the physical constant” to be equivalent to “the temperature-dependent physical constant”. For the sake of examination, the limitation “the physical constant” is interpreted as “the temperature-dependent physical constant”.
Please make appropriate corrections for clarity.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC 112(f)
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 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) 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) 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.
The current application includes limitations in claim 15 that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because of the following reasons:
Claim 15 includes limitations/elements that use generic placeholders, “an arithmetic operation unit”, that are coupled with functional language, “execute”, without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The physical structure of interpretation of “an arithmetic operation unit” is interpreted as a CPU of a general computer system (see specification - The arithmetic operation unit is a central processing device that controls the entire computer [0088]).
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the program and the computer readable recording media are transitory in nature and they do not belong to one of the four categories of Statutory Subject Matter (see MPEP 2106.03 Eligibility Step 1: The Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter - data per se, program per se, software per se).
Claims 10-17 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative claim 10 recites:
“An estimated value acquisition method of acquiring an estimated value A of a temperature-dependent physical constant of a solid substance, (10.A) the method comprising
implementing an estimation processing at Δt°C intervals from room temperature up to a predetermined temperature whose upper limit is a temperature at which the solid substance melts, to acquire the estimated values A from the room temperature up to the predetermined temperature, the estimation processing including: (10.B)
determining a predicted value Ft-At of the physical constant at (t-Δt)°C by a finite element method analysis; (10.C)
data-assimilating a measured value Yt-At of the physical constant at (t-Δt)°C to the predicted value Ft-Δt to acquire an estimated value At-Δt at (t-Δt)°C; (10.D)
giving, as an initial value, the estimated value At-Δt at (t-Δt)°C to the finite element method analysis to obtain a predicted value Ft of the physical constant at t°C; (10.E)
and data-assimilating a measured value Yt of the physical constant at t°C to the obtained predicted value Ft to obtain an estimated value At at t°C. (10.F)”.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (Process - Method).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion).
For example, highlighted limitations/steps (10.B)– (10.F) are treated by the Examiner as belonging to Mathematical Concept grouping as the limitations include Mathematical Calculations/Algorithms, or show Mathematical Relationship.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements: (Side Note: duplicated elements are not repeated)
In Claim 10: “An estimated value acquisition method of acquiring an estimated value A of a temperature-dependent physical constant of a solid substance”:
In Claim 13: “A program for causing a computer to execute acquisition of estimated values A of a temperature-dependent physical constant of a solid substance from room temperature up to a predetermined temperature whose upper limit is a temperature at which the solid substance melts” and “step of inputting, into the computer, a measured value Y of the physical constant at Δt°C intervals from the room temperature up to the predetermined temperature“;
In Claim 14: “A computer-readable recording medium, the recording medium storing the program”:
In Claim 15: “An apparatus comprising an arithmetic operation unit that executes the program”;
In Claim 16: “A processed product manufacturing method comprising obtaining a processed product of a solid substance”;
In Claim 17: “A fatigue damage monitoring method”;
As per claim 10, the additional element in the preamble “An estimated value acquisition method of acquiring an estimated value A of a temperature-dependent physical constant of a solid substance” is not a meaningful limitation because the preamble simply links the method with an abstract idea, i.e. Mathematical Concept of estimating values of a temperature-dependent constant. The limitation/element “a solid substance” describes the temperature-dependent constant and is not particular in the art.
As per claim 13, the additional element in the preamble “A program for causing a computer to execute acquisition of estimated values A of a temperature-dependent physical constant of a solid substance from room temperature up to a predetermined temperature whose upper limit is a temperature at which the solid substance melts” is not a meaningful limitation because the preamble simply links the computer program with an abstract idea, i.e. Mathematical Concept of estimating values of a temperature-dependent constant. Although the calculation of the estimated values is performed using the computer subcomponents, use of the general computer subcomponents for the calculation is not significant and only adds insignificant extra solution to the judicial exception. The limitation/element “a solid substance” describes the temperature-dependent constant, failing to explicitly recite the limitation/element as an independent element for the claim, and is not particular in the art.
The limitation/step “step of inputting, into the computer, a measured value Y of the physical constant at Δt°C intervals from the room temperature up to the predetermined temperature“ represents standard data collection step in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception.
As per claim 14, the limitation/element “A computer-readable recording medium, the recording medium storing the program” represents a general computer subcomponents and is not particular in the art.
As per claim 15, the limitation/element “An apparatus comprising an arithmetic operation unit that executes the program” represents a general computer (see specification - The arithmetic operation unit is a central processing device that controls the entire computer [0088]) and is not particular in the art.
As per claim 16, additional elements/steps “A processed product manufacturing method comprising obtaining a processed product of a solid substance” represents a general manufacturing method which is recited with a high level of generality, i.e. obtaining a processed product of a solid substance, without specific manufacturing steps nor a type of product. The limitation/step “obtaining a processed product of a solid substance” only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception.
As per claim 17, the limitation “A fatigue damage monitoring method” is not meaningful because the limitation simply links a method to an abstract idea, i.e. fatigue damage monitoring.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements as a whole do not reflect an improvement to the computer technology or other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. No particular machine or real-world transformation are claimed. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Under Step 2B analysis, the above claims fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as shown in the prior art of record.
The limitations/elements listed as additional elements above are well understood, routine and conventional steps/elements in the art according to the prior art of record. (See Deng ‘2006, Kim, Zhao, Wood, Deng ‘2007 and others in the list of prior art cited below)
Claims 10-17, therefore, are not patent eligible.
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 10, 12, 13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (Deng, Dean, and Hidekazu Murakawa. "Numerical simulation of temperature field and residual stress in multi-pass welds in stainless steel pipe and comparison with experimental measurements." Computational materials science 37, no. 3 (2006): 269-277), hereinafter “Deng ‘2006” in view of Kim (Kim, Youngkyu. "Physics-informed data assimilation and data-driven reduced order model." PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 2020), hereinafter ‘Kim’ best understood by the examiner.
As per claim 1, Deng ‘2006 discloses
An estimated value acquisition method of acquiring an estimated value A of a temperature-dependent physical constant of a solid substance, (analyzing temperature fields and residual stress states in multi-pass welds in … stainless steel pipe [abs], Finite Element method, formulation considers the contributions of the transient temperature field to the stress analysis through thermal expansion, as well as temperature-dependent thermo-physical and mechanical properties [pg. 271 left col par. 2 – right col par. 1])
the method comprising implementing an estimation processing at Δt°C intervals from room temperature up to a predetermined temperature whose upper limit is a temperature at which the solid substance melts, to acquire the estimated values A from the room temperature up to the predetermined temperature (compare the temperature cycles predicted by the …model with the experiment [pg. 274 right col par. 4 – pg. 276 left col par. 3, Table 2, Fig. 13], showing incremental temperature steps for property estimation/prediction, The thermal physical properties and mechanical properties of the base metal [pg. 271 right col par. 2 table 2], showing the temperature range which covers the room temperature and the melting point, artificially … assumed for temperature above the melting point [pg. 272 right col par. 5], predicting the thermal cycles and the welding residual stresses [pg. 276 right col par. 1-4])
the estimation processing including: determining a predicted value Ft-Δt of the physical constant at (t-Δt)°C by a finite element method analysis; (the finite element models are employed to evaluate the transient temperature and the residual stress fields, model is developed to simulate the temperature fields and welding residual stresses [abs], side note: simulate welding residual stress means simulating welding stresses of a solid substance, equivalent to values of the physical constant , used a … FE model to predict temperature distributions in a … welded piping branch junction [pg. 270 left col par. 2], temperature cycles … predicted by the … model with the experiment [pg. 274 right col par. 4 – pg. 275 left col par. 1, Table, 2, Fig. 13])
Deng ‘2006 also implies “giving, as an initial value, the estimated value At-Δt at (t-Δt)°C to the finite element method analysis to obtain a predicted value Ft of the physical constant at t°C (temperature cycles … predicted by the … model with the experiment [pg. 274 right col par. 4 – pg. 275 left col par. 1, Table 2, Fig. 13], predicting the thermal cycles and the welding residual stresses [pg. 276 right col par. 1-4])
However, Deng ‘2006 is silent regarding “data-assimilating a measured value Yt-At of the physical constant at (t-Δt)°C to the predicted value Ft-Δt to acquire an estimated value At-Δt at (t-Δt)°C” and “and data-assimilating a measured value Yt of the physical constant at t°C to the obtained predicted value Ft to obtain an estimated value At at t°C” without further trying to minimize the welding residual stress.
Kim discloses data assimilation steps using physical model estimated data and measured data by minimizing the difference (Thermal State Estimation using Kalman Filters, data assimilation method, by minimizing the variance of error, which is equivalent to the trace of error covariance, noise covariance Q and the measurement noise covariance R, least square method, The developed method takes into account both numerical simulation data from the physical model and measured data from sensors. A virtual experiment was performed and showed the accuracy of the estimation of the thermal field improved using the presented method [pg. 4 – 20, Fig. 2.1])
Kim is also concerned about thermal state estimation using models like Deng ‘2006.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of Deng ‘2006 in view of Kim to include steps “data-assimilating a measured value Yt-At of the physical constant at (t-Δt)°C to the predicted value Ft-Δt to acquire an estimated value At-Δt at (t-Δt)°C; giving, as an initial value, the estimated value At-Δt at (t-Δt)°C to the finite element method analysis to obtain a predicted value Ft of the physical constant at t°C; and data-assimilating a measured value Yt of the physical constant at t°C to the obtained predicted value Ft to obtain an estimated value At at t°” with a rationale to accurately estimate temperature-dependent physical constants of a solid substance (see Deng ‘2006 - In order to accurately capture the temperature fields
and the residual stresses in the welded pipe [pg. 271 left col par. 2]).
As per claim 12, Deng ‘2006 and Kim discloses claim 10 set forth above.
Deng ‘2006 further discloses using a thermal conduction analysis or a thermal-elastic-plastic analysis in finite element method (FE modeling, welding model is computed by the heat conduction analysis, the temperature history is employed as a thermal load in the subsequent mechanical elastic plastic calculation of the residual stress field [pg. 271 left col par. 2 – right col par. 1]).
As per claim 13, Deng ‘2006 discloses
A program for causing a computer to execute acquisition of estimated values A of a temperature-dependent physical constant of a solid substance from room temperature up to a predetermined temperature whose upper limit is a temperature at which the solid substance melts, (Based on … software, thermo-mechanical … finite element models are developed, analyzing temperature fields and residual stress states in multi-pass welds in … stainless steel pipe [abs], Finite Element method, formulation considers the contributions of the transient temperature field to the stress analysis through thermal expansion, as well as temperature-dependent thermo-physical and mechanical properties [pg. 271 left col par. 2 – right col par. 1]) the program comprising:
a first step of inputting, into the computer, a measured value Y of the physical constant at Δt°C intervals from the room temperature up to the predetermined temperature; (temperature cycles, thermal cycles [pg. 274 right col par. 1 from the bottom, Fig. 2 and 13], showing the temperature range including the room temperature up to the predetermined temperature; temperature cycles and welding residual stress fields … which are in … agreement with the experimental measurements [pg. 276 right col par. 3], implies collecting a measured value)
a second step of causing the computer to select, as an initial value, an estimated value At-Δt at (t-Δt)°C and to execute a finite element method analysis using the selected initial value, to obtain a predicted value Ft of the physical constant at t°C; (the finite element models are employed to evaluate the transient temperature and the residual stress fields, model is developed to simulate the temperature fields and welding residual stresses [abs], used a … FE model to predict temperature distributions in a … welded piping branch junction [pg. 270 left col par. 2], temperature cycles … predicted by the … model with the experiment [pg. 274 right col par. 4 – pg. 275 left col par. 1, Table 2, Fig. 13], predicting the thermal cycles and the welding residual stresses [pg. 276 right col par. 1-4], implying repeated process for each temperature cycles with increasing temperature steps).
However, Deng ‘2006 is silent regarding “a third step of causing the computer to execute an operation that data-assimilates the predicted value Ft to the measured value Yt of the physical constant at t°C, to obtain an estimated value A at t°C”
Kim discloses data assimilation steps using physical model estimated data and measured data by minimizing the difference (Thermal State Estimation using Kalman Filters, data assimilation method, by minimizing the variance of error, which is equivalent to the trace of error covariance, noise covariance Q and the measurement noise covariance R, least square method, The developed method takes into account both numerical simulation data from the physical model and measured data from sensors. A virtual experiment was performed and showed the accuracy of the estimation of the thermal field improved using the presented method [pg. 4 – 20, Fig. 2.1])
Kim is also concerned about thermal state estimation by using models like Deng ‘2006.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of Deng ‘2006 in view of Kim to include a third step of causing the computer to execute an operation that data-assimilates the predicted value Ft to the measured value Yt of the physical constant at t°C, to obtain an estimated value A at t°C with a rationale to accurately estimate temperature-dependent physical constants of a solid substance.
The combined prior art further implies including a fourth step of causing the computer to execute the second step and the third step at Δt°C intervals from the room temperature up to the predetermined temperature as repeated processes (see Deng ‘2006 - temperature cycles, thermal cycles [pg. 274 right col par. 1 from the bottom, Fig. 2 and 13], showing a repeated process for each temperature with each step increment).
As per claim 16, Deng ‘2006 and Kim discloses claim 10 set forth above.
Deng ‘2006 further discloses a processed product manufacturing method comprising obtaining a processed product of a solid substance (welds … stainless steel pipe [abs], welded product [pg. 269 right col par. 1], manufacturing process [pg. 275 right col par. 1]).
As per claim 17, Deng ‘2006 and Kim discloses claim 10 set forth above.
Deng ‘2006 further discloses a fatigue monitoring method comprising monitoring fatigue damage of a structure formed from the solid substance using the acquired estimated value (residual stress, susceptibility of a weld to fatigue damage, stress corrosion cracking and fracture [pg. 269 left col par. 1 – right col par. 1]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng ‘2006 and Kim in view of Zhao (CN 109670195 A).
As per claim 11, Deng ‘2006 and Kim discloses claim 10 set forth above.
Kim further discloses using Kalman filter for the estimation of the property of the rigid material manufactured through additive manufacturing (polymer additive manufacturing ‘AM’ processes, material extrusion, often also known as Fused Deposition Modeling ‘FDM’ or fused lament fabrication ‘FFF’ is the most widely used technology. In the FDM process, an object is built by selectively depositing melted polymer material in a pre-determined path layer-by-layer which rapidly hardens into rigid material [pg. 4 par. 1 from the bottom – pg. 5 par. 1], apply this data assimilation technique to monitoring of the FDM process. This can be interpreted as an enhanced digital twin solution. The digital twin is a thermal model of the FDM process which is enhanced by updating the state estimate continuously in real-time through sensor measurements. This combined system will output the accurate thermal state estimation and the uncertainty measurements on that estimation, which will enable real-time monitoring of the FDM process [pg. 5 par. 4]), but is silent regarding Ensemble Kalman filter.
Zhao discloses an optimal estimation of model physical property parameter using ensemble Kalman Filter (determining each well dynamic maximum sensitivity region. constructing the localized matrix based on sensitive areas, optimal estimation and binding ensemble Kalman filter ‘EnKF’ method [pg. 6 line 18 - 20], establishing a new correction covariance matrix associated with localized EnKF method … using the model static physical property parameter, so as to obtain more accurate sensitivity covariance estimation [pg. 13 line 7-13]).
Although Zhao belong to a different art, Zhao is also concerned on solving modeled physical property estimation using Kalman filter like the combined prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention was filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Zhao to perform the data assimilation with an ensemble Kalman filer with a rationale to accurately estimate temperature-dependent physical constants of a solid substance.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng ‘2006 and Kim in view of Wood (US 20210114098 A1).
As per claim 14, Deng ‘2006 and Kim discloses claim 13 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art is silent regarding a use of a computer-readable recording medium, the recording medium storing the program.
Wood discloses the use of a computer-readable recording medium, the recording medium storing the program (computer readable media, instructions, program modules [0086]).
Wood solves the same problem of estimating value A of a temperature-dependent physical constant of a solid substance (estimation algorithms, methods, and systems, properties of stability, controllability and observability [abs], metal powder [0004], residual stresses, porosity, and anisotropy in material properties. temperature history influences metallurgic phase information which in turn influences mechanical properties and corrosion resistance, a complete temperature history would enable one to predict phases composition at all locations in a part [0005], discretizing defining a set of variables that represent temperature at specific spatial locations, using the thermal transport model and thermal properties of the part material, estimating the values of the variable set using a Kalman filter [0009]) as the combined prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention was filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Wood to use a computer-readable recording medium, the recording medium storing the program according to claim 13 with a rationale to accurately estimate temperature-dependent physical constants of a solid substance through automation by leveraging computer technology.
As per claim 15, Deng ‘2006 and Kim discloses claim 13 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art is silent regarding an apparatus comprising an arithmetic operation unit that executes the program.
Wood discloses an apparatus comprising an arithmetic operation unit that executes the program (Computer-executable instructions, such as program modules, being executed by a computer [0082], computing device, at least one processing unit [0083, Fig. 4], program modules [0086]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention was filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Wood to employ an apparatus comprising an arithmetic operation unit that executes the program according to claim 13 with a rationale to accurately estimate temperature-dependent physical constants of a solid substance through automation by leveraging computer technology.
Notes with regard to Prior Art
The prior arts made of record are provided as additional references relevant to the current claims.
Deng (Deng, Dean, Hidekazu Murakawa, and Wei Liang. "Numerical simulation of welding distortion in large structures." Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering 196, no. 45-48 (2007): 4613-4627), also called as “Deng’2007”, discloses An estimated value acquisition method of acquiring an estimated value A of a temperature-dependent physical constant of a solid substance and an estimation processing at Δt°C intervals from room temperature up to a redetermined temperature whose upper limit is a temperature at which the solid substance melts, to acquire the estimated values A from the room temperature up to the predetermined temperature (the temperature history is employed as a thermal load in the … mechanical analysis, finite element program, thermal physical properties, temperature-dependent thermo-physical properties, artificially … is assumed for temperature above the melting point [pg. 4616 left col par. 1 - , Fig. 9], showing the range of temperature covering from the room temperature to the melting point temperature).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS KAY, whose telephone number is (408) 918-7569. The examiner can normally be reached on M, Th & F 8-5, T 2-7, and W 8-1.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DOUGLAS KAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
