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 1-20 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
Office personnel are to give claims their "broadest reasonable interpretation" in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541,550-551(CCPA 1969). See *also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322(Fed. Cir. 1989) ("During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow").... The reason is simply that during patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed.... An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.
Claims recite "and/or". The claims reciting "and/or" were interpreted as “or”.
Claim Objections
Claim 19, line(s) refer to the term “the second element”, it would be better as “the second contact element” to avoid any possible antecedent issues.
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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 6 and 7 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 applicant regards as the invention.
As to claim 6, the term "substantially" in last line is a relative term, which renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially" 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 subject matter description of “substantially” in the specification amounts to repetitions of “substantially”, i.e. no definition of “substantially” is elaborated in the description.
As to claim 7, the same deficiency applies.
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.
[AltContent: connector]Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1, Step 1: a method (process = 2019 PEG Step 1 = yes)
Independent claim 1 Step 2A, Prong One: claim recites:
determining, by a processor, a released energy, a damage parameter value, or a contact status of a contact element included within a first mesh that represents a region of physical objects simulated by a cohesive zone model
The claim is substantially drawn to mental concepts: observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion; but for the recitation of generic computer components. Information and/or data also fall within the realm of abstract ideas because information and data are intangible. See Electric Power Group1 (Electric Power hereinafter). Determinations are mental in nature. These limitations, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be characterized as entailing a user analyzing deciding/determining (judgments, opinions), that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. As to these limitations, solving mathematical equations are activities that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper and predictions are mental in nature. The specification reads (underline emphasis added):
'[0066]… determination at 402 can be performed using, for example, a released energy formula (e.g., such as computing normal critical fracture energy for a mode I debonding, computing tangential critical fracture energy for a mode II debonding, and/or computing total fracture energy for a mixed mode de bonding) or through calculation of an area under a traction force-displacement curve (e.g., as shown in FIG. 5)…
[0067]… utilize Equation 1 for determining the relative change of released energy.
ΔE = Eact - Eref (1)
Eref…
[0080]… change of damage value "Δd" can be computed in accordance with Equation
2 below.
Δd = I dintpt=k - dintpt=i l (2)'.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers abstract ideas, then it falls within groupings of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes).
Independent claim 1 Step 2A, Prong Two: claim recites the additional elements computer-implemented and a processor as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications.
As to the limitations “remeshing, by the processor, a finite element associated with the contact element to generate a second mesh to represent the region based on the released energy, the damage parameter value, or the contact status to obtain physical characteristics associated with a debonding of the physical objects", they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because the limitations invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Independent claim 1 Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claim recites computer-implemented and a processor at a high level of generality and as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of a computer to implement the abstract idea of a mathematical or mental algorithm has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. The implementation on a computing system is described in the specification (underline emphasis added):
"[0126] In this regard, FIG. 15 illustrates one example of a computer system 1500… Computer system 1500 can be implemented on one or more general purpose networked computer systems, embedded computer systems, routers, switches, server devices, client devices, various intermediate devices/nodes or standalone computer systems".
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process are just “apply it” limitations. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The specification reads (underline emphasis added):
"[0003]… the cohesive zone model can utilize non-linear adaptivity to dynamically implement the refining and/or coarsening of the mesh in response to changes in the computational solution (e.g., non-linear adaptivity uses a feedback mechanism to discretely or continuously adjust internal parameters automatically so that an accurate and convergent solution is obtained)".
Thus, taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that their combination improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Independent claim 10, Step 1: a method (process = 2019 PEG Step 1 = yes)
Independent claim 10 Step 2A, Prong One: claim recites:
determining, by a processor, a released energy that characterizes a relative change of released energy of a contact element between substeps of a debonding in a region of physical objects simulated by a cohesive zone model, wherein the region is represented by a first mesh that includes the contact element
The claim is substantially drawn to mental concepts. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One above).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers abstract ideas, then it falls within groupings of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes).
Independent claim 10 Step 2A, Prong Two: claim recites the additional elements computer-implemented and a processor as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications.
As to the limitations “remeshing, by the processor, a finite element associated with the contact element to generate a second mesh to represent the region based on the released energy to obtain physical characteristics associated with the debonding of the physical objects", they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because the limitations invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Independent claim 10 Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claim recites computer-implemented and a processor at a high level of generality and as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process are just “apply it” limitations. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
Thus, taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that their combination improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Independent claim 15, Step 1: a method (process = 2019 PEG Step 1 = yes)
Independent claim 15 Step 2A, Prong One: claim recites:
determining, by a processor, a damage parameter value of a contact element included within a first mesh that represents a region of physical objects simulated by a cohesive zone model, wherein the damage parameter value is a function of displacement between the contact element and a target element
The claim is substantially drawn to mental concepts. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One above).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers abstract ideas, then it falls within groupings of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes).
Independent claim 15 Step 2A, Prong Two: claim recites the additional elements computer-implemented and a processor as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications.
As to the limitations “remeshing, by the processor, a finite element associated with the contact element to generate a second mesh to represent the region based on the damage parameter value to obtain physical characteristics associated with a debonding of the physical objects", they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because the limitations invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Independent claim 15 Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claim recites computer-implemented and a processor at a high level of generality and as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process are just “apply it” limitations. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
Thus, taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that their combination improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims Step 2A, Prong One: Dependent claims limitations further the mental concepts of their independent claims. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One above).
As to the limitations “2… comparing, by the processor, the released energy to a threshold value, wherein the remeshing comprises refining the first mesh to generate the second mesh based on the released energy being greater than the threshold value", "4… comparing, by the processor, the damage parameter value to a threshold value", "6… comparing, by the processor, a first damage parameter value associated with a first integration point of the contact element to a second damage parameter value associated with a second integration point of the contact element", "16… comparing, by the processor, the relative change in damage to a threshold value", "18… comparing, by the processor, a first damage parameter value of a first integration point of the contact element to a second damage parameter value of a second integration point of the contact element", "19… comparing, by the processor, the third damage parameter value of the third integration point of the second contact element and the first damage parameter value of the first integration point of the contact element"; comparisons are mental in nature. These limitations, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be characterized as entailing a user evaluating information (evaluations, judgments, opinions), that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers abstract ideas, then it falls within groupings of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes).
Dependent claims Step 2A Prong two:
As to the limitations "5… wherein the remeshing comprises refining the first mesh to generate the second mesh based on the damage parameter value being greater than the threshold value", "6… wherein the remeshing comprises refining the first mesh to generate the second mesh based on the first damage parameter value characterizing damage to the contact element and the second damage parameter value characterizing substantially no damage to the contact element", "7… remeshing, by the processor, a second finite element associated with a second contact element based on each integration point of the second contact element having a damage parameter value that characterizes substantially no damage to the second contact element, where the second contact element is adjacent to the contact element", "8… wherein the remeshing comprises coarsening the first mesh to generate the second mesh based on the contact status and/or damage parameter value being indicative of the contact element being in a fully debonded state and the contact element being greater than a pre-defined distance from an active cohesive zone region of the cohesive zone model", "9… mapping, by the processor, one or more debonding related solution variables from the first mesh to the second mesh; equilibrating, by the processor, unbalanced forces for the debonding on the second mesh; and simulating, by the processor, the debonding in the region represented as the second mesh", "11… wherein the remeshing comprises refining the first mesh to generate the second mesh based on the released energy being greater than a threshold value", "12… wherein the scope of the refining is a function of the threshold value", "13… wherein the refining becomes increasingly localized as the threshold value decreases in value", "14… wherein the remeshing further comprises remeshing a finite element associated with the target element to generate the second mesh based on the comparing", "17… wherein the remeshing comprises refining the first mesh to generate the second mesh based on the relative change in damage parameter value being greater than the threshold value", "18… wherein the remeshing comprises refining the first mesh to generate the second mesh based on the comparing being indicative of an onset of damage to the contact element", "19… wherein the remeshing comprises refining the first mesh to generate the second mesh based on the comparing being indicative of an onset of damage to the second contact element", "20… wherein the remeshing comprises refining the first mesh to generate the second mesh based on the relative change in damage parameter value being greater than a defined threshold value"; they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because the limitations invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Dependent claims, Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process are just “apply it” limitations. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, pages, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nossek et al., (Nossek hereinafter), Adaptive Simulation of Cohesive Interface Debonding for Crash-and Impact Analyses, taken in view of Ricky Howard Dean, (Dean hereinafter), U.S. Patent 8204727.
As to claim 1, Nossek discloses a computer-implemented method (see "initial-rigid cohesive zone model and the implementation in the explicit dynamic FE-code SOPHIA… CFRP structures that shall be analyzed here consist of thin layers where cracks can originate between neighbored layers. Usually, these structures are modeled with shell elements" in page 4, last paragraph), comprising: determining, by a processor, a released energy, (see "After splitting a node, a damage model based on fracture energy is used, which gradually reduces the cohesive strength with increasing crack opening" in page 6, next to last paragraph) of a contact element included within a first mesh that represents a region of physical objects simulated by a cohesive zone model (see "On way of modelling debonding is the use of cohesive zone models… A traction-separation-relation describes the crack opening behaviour… adaptive initial rigid cohesive zone model is presented for the simulation of delamination between material boundaries in three-dimensional bodies" in page 1, next to last paragraph); and remeshing, by the processor, a finite element associated with the contact element to generate a second mesh to represent the region based on the released energy (see "remeshing" as "adaptation of the FE-mesh", "For initiation of delamination under pure Mode-I or Mode-II loading (figure 4, (a)) the delamination stress can be directly compared to Mode-I or Mode-II strength… If eq. (5) is complied, an adaptation of the FE-mesh is executed. This means that a new node is generated with the same information as the delamination node, the connectivity of both nodes and connected elements is rebuilt, the nodal mass is adjusted and the contact surfaces for the existing contact algorithm are extended. After splitting a node, a damage model based on fracture energy is used, which gradually reduces the cohesive strength with increasing crack opening" in page 6, 1st-next to last paragraphs)(see "On way of modelling debonding is the use of cohesive zone models… A traction-separation-relation describes the crack opening behaviour. It comprises an initial elastic behaviour and an energy based damage formulation… adaptive initial rigid cohesive zone model is presented for the simulation of delamination between material boundaries in three-dimensional bodies. The model contains on one hand algorithms for initiation and crack propagation, on the other hand procedures to handle the mesh adaptation when crack propagation has been identified" in page 1, next to last paragraph).
While Nossek discloses objects simulated by a cohesive zone model, Nossek fails to disclose physical
Dean discloses physical (see “A cohesive model was used by Hillerborg et al. to simulate crack formation… Growth in concrete and finite element based cohesive elements have been used in the study of elastic-plastic fracture of metals” in col. 19, lines 18-22).
Nossek and Dean are analogous art because they are related to remeshing in debonding simulations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Dean with Nossek, because Dean points out that "cohesive elements are based on energy release rates and tensile stresses. This fracture propagation model is used for poroelastic and poroplastic applications" (see col. 19, lines 23-26), and as a result, Dean reports that "[c]ohesive elements may be used to model strain localization and may also be used for poroplastic calculations. Another advantage of cohesive elements is that they can be used for both fracture creation and growth, while the KIC approach requires that there be a pre-existing fracture or that some other logic be used for fracture creation. Cohesive elements include a tensile strength and an energy release rate in the calculations at the tip of a propagating hydraulic fracture. This fracture propagation model uses a material's tensile strength and energy release rate to determine when a fracture propagates" (see col. 19, lines 30-40).
As to claim 2, Nossek discloses comparing, by the processor, the released energy to a threshold value, wherein the remeshing comprises refining the first mesh to generate the second mesh based on the released energy being greater than the threshold value (see "remeshing" as "adaptation of the FE-mesh", "For initiation of delamination under pure Mode-I or Mode-II loading (figure 4, (a)) the delamination stress can be directly compared to Mode-I or Mode-II strength… If eq. (5) is complied, an adaptation of the FE-mesh is executed. This means that a new node is generated with the same information as the delamination node, the connectivity of both nodes and connected elements is rebuilt, the nodal mass is adjusted and the contact surfaces for the existing contact algorithm are extended. After splitting a node, a damage model based on fracture energy is used, which gradually reduces the cohesive strength with increasing crack opening" in page 6, 1st-next to last paragraphs).
As to claim 3, Nossek discloses wherein the released energy is a difference between a reference released energy and a most recently computed released energy of the contact element (see Figure 5, "With increasing Mode-I crack opening, the cohesive force decreases, such that the area under the traction-separation relation correlates to the Mode-I critical energy release rate GIc. For the linear damage model the final opening Mode-I separation can be calculated with eq. (6)" in page 7, 1st paragraph).
As to claim 4, Nossek discloses computing, by the processor, the damage parameter value as a function of damage associated with one or more integration points of the contact element (see "The constitutive relation for a Mode-II crack opening is summarized in eq. (11)… With the constitutive relations of eq. (7) and eq. (11) a pure Mode-I and pure Mode-II crack damage can be described… Under compression, the final separation is the Mode-II final separation. Under positive Mode-I separation the final separation can be calculated" in page 8, last paragraph to page 9, last paragraph); and comparing, by the processor, the damage parameter value to a threshold value (see "threshold" as "crack is fully opened when the area under the traction-separation relation is equal to the fracture toughness", "For crack propagation in the body damage is initiated by an interfacial strength and the damage evolution is described by reducing the traction acting on the crack surface by increasing separation. The crack is fully opened when the area under the traction-separation relation is equal to the fracture toughness" in page 4, 1st paragraph).
As to claim 5, Nossek discloses wherein the remeshing comprises refining the first mesh to generate the second mesh based on the damage parameter value being greater than the threshold value (see "remeshing" as "adaptive mesh changing", '"initial-rigid” cohesive models can be used, which require an adaptive mesh changing when a crack propagates' in page 4, next to last paragraph; "remeshing" as "adaptation of the FE-mesh", "For initiation of delamination under pure Mode-I or Mode-II loading (figure 4, (a)) the delamination stress can be directly compared to Mode-I or Mode-II strength… If eq. (5) is complied, an adaptation of the FE-mesh is executed. This means that a new node is generated with the same information as the delamination node, the connectivity of both nodes and connected elements is rebuilt, the nodal mass is adjusted and the contact surfaces for the existing contact algorithm are extended. After splitting a node, a damage model based on fracture energy is used, which gradually reduces the cohesive strength with increasing crack opening" in page 6, 1st-next to last paragraphs).
As to claim 6, Nossek discloses comparing, by the processor, a first damage parameter value associated with a first integration point of the contact element to a second damage parameter value associated with a second integration point of the contact element (see "For crack propagation in the body damage is initiated by an interfacial strength and the damage evolution is described by reducing the traction acting on the crack surface by increasing separation. The crack is fully opened when the area under the traction-separation relation is equal to the fracture toughness" in page 4, 1st paragraph; "If eq. (5) is complied, an adaptation of the FE-mesh is executed. This means that a new node is generated with the same information as the delamination node, the connectivity of both nodes and connected elements is rebuilt, the nodal mass is adjusted and the contact surfaces for the existing contact algorithm are extended" in page 6, 3rd paragraph), wherein the remeshing comprises refining the first mesh to generate the second mesh based on the first damage parameter value characterizing damage to the contact element and the second damage parameter value characterizing substantially no damage to the contact element (see "adaptive initial rigid cohesive zone model is presented for the simulation of delamination between material boundaries in three-dimensional bodies. The model contains on one hand algorithms for initiation and crack propagation, on the other hand procedures to handle the mesh adaptation when crack propagation has been identified" in page 1, next to last paragraph).
As to claim 7, Nossek discloses remeshing, by the processor, a second finite element associated with a second contact element based on each integration point of the second contact element having a damage parameter value that characterizes substantially no damage to the second contact element, where the second contact element is adjacent to the contact element (see "After splitting a node, a damage model based on fracture energy is used, which gradually reduces the cohesive strength with increasing crack opening" in page 6, next to last paragraph).
As to claim 8, Nossek discloses wherein the remeshing comprises coarsening the first mesh to generate the second mesh based on the contact status and/or damage parameter value being indicative of the contact element being in a fully debonded state and the contact element being greater than a pre-defined distance from an active cohesive zone region of the cohesive zone model (see "In the research code Sophia, a brick element mesh is used… fully integrated elements allow a discretisation with only one element over a layer thickness (12 elements on laminate thickness) for a rough description of bending stiffness of a single layer. With brick elements, the three-dimensional stress state is represented adequately, and the measured orthotropic material properties can directly be used" in page 12, 2nd paragraph).
As to claim 9, Nossek discloses mapping, by the processor, one or more debonding related solution variables from the first mesh to the second mesh (see "After the initialization process, all following algorithms are integrated in the incremental solution process. In every time step the Mode-I delamination direction and the area associated to every node is updated" in page 5, next to last paragraph); equilibrating, by the processor, unbalanced forces for the debonding on the second mesh (see "a new initial rigid cohesive zone model was presented, which was used for the simulation of crack propagation in layered structures. A crack is initiated by analyzing the forces on nodes at material boundaries. The forces are taken from the stress integration of the surrounding solid elements. The crack propagation is described by an automatic mesh adaptation and an energy based damage formulation" in page 14, last paragraph to page 15, 1st paragraph); and simulating, by the processor, the debonding in the region represented as the second mesh (see "In the research code Sophia, a brick element mesh is used… fully integrated elements allow a discretisation with only one element over a layer thickness (12 elements on laminate thickness) for a rough description of bending stiffness of a single layer. With brick elements, the three-dimensional stress state is represented adequately, and the measured orthotropic material properties can directly be used" in page 12, 2nd paragraph).
As to claim 10, Nossek discloses a computer-implemented method (see "initial-rigid cohesive zone model and the implementation in the explicit dynamic FE-code SOPHIA… CFRP structures that shall be analyzed here consist of thin layers where cracks can originate between neighbored layers. Usually, these structures are modeled with shell elements" in page 4, last paragraph), comprising: determining, by a processor, a released energy that characterizes a relative change of released energy of a contact element (see "After splitting a node, a damage model based on fracture energy is used, which gradually reduces the cohesive strength with increasing crack opening" in page 6, next to last paragraph) between substeps of a debonding in a region of physical objects simulated by a cohesive zone model, wherein the region is represented by a first mesh that includes the contact element (see "On way of modelling debonding is the use of cohesive zone models… A traction-separation-relation describes the crack opening behaviour… adaptive initial rigid cohesive zone model is presented for the simulation of delamination between material boundaries in three-dimensional bodies" in page 1, next to last paragraph); and remeshing, by the processor, a finite element associated with the contact element to generate a second mesh to represent the region based on the released energy (see "remeshing" as "adaptation of the FE-mesh", "For initiation of delamination under pure Mode-I or Mode-II loading (figure 4, (a)) the delamination stress can be directly compared to Mode-I or Mode-II strength… If eq. (5) is complied, an adaptation of the FE-mesh is executed. This means that a new node is generated with the same information as the delamination node, the connectivity of both nodes and connected elements is rebuilt, the nodal mass is adjusted and the contact surfaces for the existing contact algorithm are extended. After splitting a node, a damage model based on fracture energy is used, which gradually reduces the cohesive strength with increasing crack opening" in page 6, 1st-next to last paragraphs) to obtain physical characteristics associated with the debonding of the physical objects (see "On way of modelling debonding is the use of cohesive zone models… A traction-separation-relation describes the crack opening behaviour. It comprises an initial elastic behaviour and an energy based damage formulation… adaptive initial rigid cohesive zone model is presented for the simulation of delamination between material boundaries in three-dimensional bodies. The model contains on one hand algorithms for initiation and crack propagation, on the other hand procedures to handle the mesh adaptation when crack propagation has been identified" in page 1, next to last paragraph).
While Nossek discloses objects simulated by a cohesive zone model, Nossek fails to disclose physical
Dean discloses physical (see “A cohesive model was used by Hillerborg et al. to simulate crack formation… Growth in concrete and finite element based cohesive elements have been used in the study of elastic-plastic fracture of metals” in col. 19, lines 18-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Dean with Nossek, (see supra).
As to claim 11, Nossek discloses wherein the remeshing comprises refining the first mesh to generate the second mesh based on the released energy being greater than a threshold value (see "remeshing" as "adaptation of the FE-mesh", "For initiation of delamination under pure Mode-I or Mode-II loading (figure 4, (a)) the delamination stress can be directly compared to Mode-I or Mode-II strength… If eq. (5) is complied, an adaptation of the FE-mesh is executed. This means that a new node is generated with the same information as the delamination node, the connectivity of both nodes and connected elements is rebuilt, the nodal mass is adjusted and the contact surfaces for the existing contact algorithm are extended. After splitting a node, a damage model based on fracture energy is used, which gradually reduces the cohesive strength with increasing crack opening" in page 6, 1st-next to last paragraphs).
As to claim 12, Nossek discloses wherein the scope of the refining is a function of the threshold value (see "threshold" as "crack is fully opened when the area under the traction-separation relation is equal to the fracture toughness", "For crack propagation in the body damage is initiated by an interfacial strength and the damage evolution is described by reducing the traction acting on the crack surface by increasing separation. The crack is fully opened when the area under the traction-separation relation is equal to the fracture toughness" in page 4, 1st paragraph).
As to claim 13, Nossek discloses wherein the refining becomes increasingly localized as the threshold value decreases in value (see "After the initialization process, all following algorithms are integrated in the incremental solution process. In every time step the Mode-I delamination direction and the area associated to every node is updated" in page 5, next to last paragraph).
As to claim 14, Nossek discloses wherein the contact element is scoped to a target element, and wherein the remeshing further comprises remeshing a finite element associated with the target element to generate the second mesh based on the comparing (see "in the initialization routine material boundaries within the model are identified by marking every node which is connected to elements with different material identification cards as potential delamination node" in page 14, 3rd paragraph).
As to claim 15, Nossek discloses a computer-implemented method (see "initial-rigid cohesive zone model and the implementation in the explicit dynamic FE-code SOPHIA… CFRP structures that shall be analyzed here consist of thin layers where cracks can originate between neighbored layers. Usually, these structures are modeled with shell elements" in page 4, last paragraph), comprising: determining, by a processor, a damage parameter value of a contact element (see "The constitutive relation for a Mode-II crack opening is summarized in eq. (11)… With the constitutive relations of eq. (7) and eq. (11) a pure Mode-I and pure Mode-II crack damage can be described… Under compression, the final separation is the Mode-II final separation. Under positive Mode-I separation the final separation can be calculated" in page 8, last paragraph to page 9, last paragraph) included within a first mesh that represents a region of physical objects simulated by a cohesive zone model (see "On way of modelling debonding is the use of cohesive zone models… A traction-separation-relation describes the crack opening behaviour… adaptive initial rigid cohesive zone model is presented for the simulation of delamination between material boundaries in three-dimensional bodies" in page 1, next to last paragraph), wherein the damage parameter value is a function of displacement between the contact element and a target element (see "displacement" as "separation", "For crack propagation in the body damage is initiated by an interfacial strength and the damage evolution is described by reducing the traction acting on the crack surface by increasing separation. The crack is fully opened when the area under the traction-separation relation is equal to the fracture toughness" in page 4, 1st paragraph); and remeshing, by the processor, a finite element associated with the contact element to generate a second mesh to represent the region based on the damage parameter value (see "remeshing" as "adaptive mesh changing", '"initial-rigid” cohesive models can be used, which require an adaptive mesh changing when a crack propagates' in page 4, next to last paragraph; "remeshing" as "adaptation of the FE-mesh", "For initiation of delamination under pure Mode-I or Mode-II loading (figure 4, (a)) the delamination stress can be directly compared to Mode-I or Mode-II strength… If eq. (5) is complied, an adaptation of the FE-mesh is executed. This means that a new node is generated with the same information as the delamination node, the connectivity of both nodes and connected elements is rebuilt, the nodal mass is adjusted and the contact surfaces for the existing contact algorithm are extended. After splitting a node, a damage model based on fracture energy is used, which gradually reduces the cohesive strength with increasing crack opening" in page 6, 1st-next to last paragraphs) to obtain physical characteristics associated with a debonding of the physical objects (see "On way of modelling debonding is the use of cohesive zone models… A traction-separation-relation describes the crack opening behaviour. It comprises an initial elastic behaviour and an energy based damage formulation… adaptive initial rigid cohesive zone model is presented for the simulation of delamination between material boundaries in three-dimensional bodies. The model contains on one hand algorithms for initiation and crack propagation, on the other hand procedures to handle the mesh adaptation when crack propagation has been identified" in page 1, next to last paragraph).
While Nossek discloses objects simulated by a cohesive zone model, Nossek fails to disclose physical
Dean discloses physical (see “A cohesive model was used by Hillerborg et al. to simulate crack formation… Growth in concrete and finite element based cohesive elements have been used in the study of elastic-plastic fracture of metals” in col. 19, lines 18-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Dean with Nossek, (see supra).
As to claim 16, Nossek discloses determining, by the processor, a relative change in damage between integration points of the contact element as a function of the damage parameter value (see 'd=… (14) Here, d is an “isotropic” damage parameter for both Mode-I and Mode-II separation. This damage formulation reduces the cohesive traction if the Mixed-Mode crack opening separation δm increases. On unloading, the cohesive traction reduces from the current maximum m dmax to zero value' in page 10, 1st & 2nd paragraphs); and comparing, by the processor, the relative change in damage to a threshold value (see "threshold" as "crack is fully opened when the area under the traction-separation relation is equal to the fracture toughness", "For crack propagation in the body damage is initiated by an interfacial strength and the damage evolution is described by reducing the traction acting on the crack surface by increasing separation. The crack is fully opened when the area under the traction-separation relation is equal to the fracture toughness" in page 4, 1st paragraph).
As to claim 17, Nossek discloses wherein the remeshing comprises refining the first mesh to generate the second mesh based on the relative change in damage parameter value being greater than the threshold value (see "remeshing" as "adaptation of the FE-mesh", "For initiation of delamination under pure Mode-I or Mode-II loading (figure 4, (a)) the delamination stress can be directly compared to Mode-I or Mode-II strength… If eq. (5) is complied, an adaptation of the FE-mesh is executed. This means that a new node is generated with the same information as the delamination node, the connectivity of both nodes and connected elements is rebuilt, the nodal mass is adjusted and the contact surfaces for the existing contact algorithm are extended. After splitting a node, a damage model based on fracture energy is used, which gradually reduces the cohesive strength with increasing crack opening" in page 6, 1st-next to last paragraphs).
As to claim 18, Nossek discloses comparing, by the processor, a first damage parameter value of a first integration point of the contact element to a second damage parameter value of a second integration point of the contact element (see "For crack propagation in the body damage is initiated by an interfacial strength and the damage evolution is described by reducing the traction acting on the crack surface by increasing separation. The crack is fully opened when the area under the traction-separation relation is equal to the fracture toughness" in page 4, 1st paragraph; "If eq. (5) is complied, an adaptation of the FE-mesh is executed. This means that a new node is generated with the same information as the delamination node, the connectivity of both nodes and connected elements is rebuilt, the nodal mass is adjusted and the contact surfaces for the existing contact algorithm are extended" in page 6, 3rd paragraph), wherein the remeshing comprises refining the first mesh to generate the second mesh based on the comparing being indicative of an onset of damage to the contact element (see "adaptive initial rigid cohesive zone model is presented for the simulation of delamination between material boundaries in three-dimensional bodies. The model contains on one hand algorithms for initiation and crack propagation, on the other hand procedures to handle the mesh adaptation when crack propagation has been identified" in page 1, next to last paragraph).
As to claim 19, Nossek discloses determining, by the processor, a third damage parameter value of a third integration point for a second contact element included in the first mesh, wherein the contact element and the second element are both adjacent to a node associated with the debonding simulated by the cohesive zone model (see "For crack propagation in the body damage is initiated by an interfacial strength and the damage evolution is described by reducing the traction acting on the crack surface by increasing separation. The crack is fully opened when the area under the traction-separation relation is equal to the fracture toughness. For numerical simulations cohesive zone models are implemented in many research and commercial finite element codes, e.g. in special element formulations (cohesive elements… or contact algorithms [17]. All these models are based on an initially elastic behavior, a stress based failure identification and an energy based damage formulation. These kinds of models are the state of the art for modeling delamination processes or adhesive debonding and require a separate discretisation of possible crack zones. Particularly in layered structures with many potential delamination zones between every layer, the elastic behavior of the crack zone with the required initial elasticity can strongly change the effective stiffness of the whole system" in page 4, 1st-3rd paragraphs); and comparing, by the processor, the third damage parameter value of the third integration point of the second contact element and the first damage parameter value of the first integration point of the contact element (see "For crack propagation in the body damage is initiated by an interfacial strength and the damage evolution is described by reducing the traction acting on the crack surface by increasing separation. The crack is fully opened when the area under the traction-separation relation is equal to the fracture toughness" in page 4, 1st paragraph; "If eq. (5) is complied, an adaptation of the FE-mesh is executed. This means that a new node is generated with the same information as the delamination node, the connectivity of both nodes and connected elements is rebuilt, the nodal mass is adjusted and the contact surfaces for the existing contact algorithm are extended" in page 6, 3rd paragraph), wherein the remeshing comprises refining the first mesh to generate the second mesh based on the comparing being indicative of an onset of damage to the second contact element (see "adaptive initial rigid cohesive zone model is presented for the simulation of delamination between material boundaries in three-dimensional bodies. The model contains on one hand algorithms for initiation and crack propagation, on the other hand procedures to handle the mesh adaptation when crack propagation has been identified" in page 1, next to last paragraph).
As to claim 20, Nossek discloses determining, by the processor, a relative change in damage parameter value between the first damage parameter value of the first integration point of the contact element and a third damage parameter value of a third integration point of a second contact element (see 'd=… (14) Here, d is an “isotropic” damage parameter for both Mode-I and Mode-II separation. This damage formulation reduces the cohesive traction if the Mixed-Mode crack opening separation δm increases. On unloading, the cohesive traction reduces from the current maximum m dmax to zero value' in page 10, 1st & 2nd paragraphs), wherein the remeshing comprises refining the first mesh to generate the second mesh based on the relative change in damage parameter value being greater than a defined threshold value (see "remeshing" as "adaptation of the FE-mesh", "For initiation of delamination under pure Mode-I or Mode-II loading (figure 4, (a)) the delamination stress can be directly compared to Mode-I or Mode-II strength… If eq. (5) is complied, an adaptation of the FE-mesh is executed. This means that a new node is generated with the same information as the delamination node, the connectivity of both nodes and connected elements is rebuilt, the nodal mass is adjusted and the contact surfaces for the existing contact algorithm are extended. After splitting a node, a damage model based on fracture energy is used, which gradually reduces the cohesive strength with increasing crack opening" in page 6, 1st-next to last paragraphs).
Conclusion
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, pages, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN CARLOS OCHOA whose telephone number is (571)272-2625. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays 9:30AM – 7:00 PM.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached on 571-270-1104. 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.
***
/JUAN C OCHOA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
1 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 119 USPQ2d 1739 Fed. Cir. 2016
Prosecution Insights