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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10, 12-27, 32, and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental processes and mathematical relationships) without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
A method for analysis of a fastened structure, comprising: (this falls within the statutory categories of invention.)
accessing an electronic design model of the fastened structure, (this would include operations such as loading from memory, and is within the scope of generic computer component activity as per MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an exception with generic computer components)
the fastened structure comprising at least two structural elements assembled via a plurality of fastener elements, the electronic design model comprising structural element parameters for each structural element and fastener parameters for each fastener element, the structural element parameters and the fastener parameters are representative of characteristics and behaviors of the corresponding structural elements and the corresponding fastener elements in environments to which a built-up version of the fastened structure is expected to be exposed; (a person could mentally evaluate such modeling with the aid of blueprint paper recordings)
embedding at least one sensor element model within the electronic design model, each sensor element model is embedded at a select location relating to a select joint between two or more structural elements of the at least two structural elements, the at least one sensor element model configured to monitor measurement parameters at the select location in response to one or more simulated load applied to the electronic design model; (this can be accomplished by a person recording a location on the blueprint paper via otherwise mental evaluations and judgements.)
applying at least one simulated load to the electronic design model; (this is done by providing input to mathematical equations in solver software for a finite element modeling algorithm, see discussion of the below limitation)
monitoring the measurement parameters using the at least one sensor element model to detect load conditions at the corresponding select location based on the at least one simulated load; and (this is accomplished via solving physics equations associated with physics and finite element modeling, note the specification is explicit that “the sensor element models are modeled structural elements that are represented in software, such as ABAQUS® or LS-DYNA.” The specification also notes that the sensor elements are “finite element models”. Using solver software to calculate the results of mathematical equations according to the finite element mathematical algorithm falls within the scope of mathematical relationships.)
comparing the detected load conditions to predetermined measurement thresholds for the monitored measurement parameters. (this is a mathematical comparison operation between calculated numerical values, and could also be performed mentally by a person making observations and judgements.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the following additional element: mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (the processor/memory). The processor/memory is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor/memory performing a generic computer function of executing instructions and storing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor/memory to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-5, 8, 10, and 12-27 recite only further details that fall within the scope of mental processes and mathematical relationships as analyzed above. The above rationales remain applicable to them, and they are also ineligible.
Claims 32 and 59 are substantially similar to claim 1 with the addition of further features directed to generic computer components in a manner equivalent to mere instructions to apply an exception as per MPEP 2106.05(f). They remain ineligible for the reasons set forth above for claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10, 13-18, 23-27, 32, and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Airoldi (Airoldi, A., Marelli, L., Bettini, P., Sala, G., & Apicella, A. (2017, April). Strain field reconstruction on composite spars based on the identification of equivalent load conditions. In Sensors and Smart Structures Technologies for Civil, Mechanical, and Aerospace Systems 2017 (Vol. 10168, pp. 207-226). SPIE. Cited by Applicant on the IDS dated 10/11/2024.).
Regarding Claim 1, Airoldi teaches:
A method for analysis of a fastened structure, comprising: (Section 2.2, In this study, the parameterized load system will be based on a set of concentrated forces components that are transmitted to the spar element at 6 points in correspondence of the connections with the ribs. Force resultant will be considered applied to the shear center of the local sections, which have been first roughly estimated by using an analytical procedure based on semi-monocoque theory and then verified by means of the finite element model of the spar that has been developed for the implementation of the procedure.)
accessing an electronic design model of the fastened structure, the fastened structure comprising at least two structural elements assembled via a plurality of fastener elements, the electronic design model comprising structural element parameters for each structural element and fastener parameters for each fastener element, the structural element parameters and the fastener parameters are representative of characteristics and behaviors of the corresponding structural elements and the corresponding fastener elements in environments to which a built-up version of the fastened structure is expected to be exposed; (Section 2.2, The junction elements between the spar and the rib-posts are modelled by using special connection elements available in the solver code (meshless rivets12), which do not require the coincidence of the nodes in the two meshes to be connected.; Section 2.3, Moreover, the details of the physical connections between the ribs and the spar introduce a variation of the strain field that can be formalized by introducing a set of influence coefficients βjj, referred to each one of the M Fj components.)
embedding at least one sensor element model within the electronic design model, each sensor element model is embedded at a select location relating to a select joint between two or more structural elements of the at least two structural elements, the at least one sensor element model configured to monitor measurement parameters at the select location in response to one or more simulated load applied to the electronic design model; (Section 2.1, A set of N strain sensor constitutes a virtual strain monitoring systems, which is supposed to be based on Fiber Bragg Gratings (FBG) inscribed on optical fibers that are applied to the surfaces of the spar … Therefore, optical rosettes can also be applied at selected web locations. Such sensors are fundamental to detect the shear strain on the spar and are expected to play a crucial role, since the limited torsional stiffness of the open-section spar suggest a particular sensitivity to torsional loads.; Section 2.2, In this study, the parameterized load system will be based on a set of concentrated forces components that are transmitted to the spar element at 6 points in correspondence of the connections with the ribs)
applying at least one simulated load to the electronic design model; (Section 1, The density of sensors, the complexity of the systems and the difficulties related to their installations can be greatly reduced if the sensing system is designed to monitor the operational conditions of a component from a more general perspective, making possible a reconstruction of the load conditions and of the strain fields experienced by the structure during the operational life.; Section 2.2, In this study, the parameterized load system will be based on a set of concentrated forces components that are transmitted to the spar element at 6 points in correspondence of the connections with the ribs.)
monitoring the measurement parameters using the at least one sensor element model to detect load conditions at the corresponding select location based on the at least one simulated load; and (Section 1, In the following section, the structural component and the architecture proposed for the monitoring system are presented, and the fundamental aspects of the numerical approach are discussed, including the selection of the reference finite element model that is adopted to implement the approach.; Section 2.2, Assuming a linear structural response, the strains acquired by monitoring system in a given generic load conditions are considered generated by the superposition of M strain contributions {ε*}i, each one corresponding to the strain field generated by the component Fj of the vector {F}.)
comparing the detected load conditions to predetermined measurement thresholds for the monitored measurement parameters. (Section 5, The basic ingredients of the method are the development of a reference finite element model of the subcomponents, the application of a least square approach, possibly refined by the adoption of regularization procedures, and the introduction of an equivalent parameterized load system, which is required to represent the fundamental loading modes of the element to be monitored.; Section 5, The results achieved by using a quite limited number of sensors, about ten per each bay of the spar, are particularly promising to develop technologically feasible and relatively dense networks of sensors to monitor with good accuracy the complete strain state experienced by a structural subcomponent, thus providing an approach with a significant potential for the development of condition-based maintenance procedures and a reconstructed baseline to improve the probability of detection of damages in the hot spots of the structures, by means of more dense and possibly embedded sensors networks.; Section 1, Such approach could also provide the identification of nominal strain fields that could greatly enhance the probability of detection of damages by means of the recognition of local outliers originated by damage states.; Seciton 3.3, More differences exist in the reconstruction of the shear strain field, presented in Fig. 15-(b), where maximum discrepancies of 10% can be observed in some of bays. The maps reported in Fig. 16 are referred to the same virtual test case and document the reconstruction of the displacement fields.)
Regarding Claim 2, Airoldi teaches:
wherein the fastened structure comprises three or more structural elements assembled via the plurality of fastener elements. (Fig. 1, Section 2.2, The junction elements between the spar and the rib-posts are modelled by using special connection elements available in the solver code (meshless rivets12), which do not require the coincidence of the nodes in the two meshes to be connected.; Fig. 6, Section 3.1, Accordingly, the same load systems that can be introduced through the rib-posts in the reference model, are applied in the surrogate model through much more deformable ribs, which are connected by means of meshless rivets to the post-ribs.)
Regarding Claim 3, Airoldi teaches:
wherein the fastened structure forms at least one of a product structure, a vehicle structure, an automotive vehicle structure, an air vehicle structure, an aircraft structure, a missile structure, a rocket structure, a launch structure, a satellite structure, a bridge structure and a tunnel structure. (Fig. 1; Section 2.1, The structural element taken into consideration in this work is a 3 m long spar, made of carbon reinforced composite, with a tapered C-section, shown in Fig. 1. Such element is the forward spar of a wing-box designed to support morphing aerodynamic surfaces; examiner notes this is an aircraft wing.)
Regarding Claim 4, Airoldi teaches:
wherein the plurality of fastener elements comprises a set of fastener elements, wherein the at least two structural elements comprise at least one composite structural element and at least one non-composite structural element, wherein the at least one non-composite structural element is joined to one or more of the at least one composite structural element via the set of fastener elements. (Fig. 1; Section 2.1, The structural element taken into consideration in this work is a 3 m long spar, made of carbon reinforced composite, with a tapered C-section, shown in Fig. 1. Such element is the forward spar of a wing-box designed to support morphing aerodynamic surfaces; Section 2.1, Ribs, which are numbered in Fig. 1, are connected to the spar through a system of rib-posts, which consist of pairs of machined metallic elements, joined to the internal surface of the spar and to the ribs.; Table 3)
Regarding Claim 5, Airoldi teaches:
wherein the plurality of fastener elements and the set of fastener elements comprise at least one of metal fasteners, metal screws, metal machine screws, metal bolts, metal pins, metal rivets, metal nuts and metal retaining mechanisms. (Section 2.1, In the complete structure the spar is included in the wing box, so that additional loads will be transmitted by the upper and lower panels, which are riveted to the flange of the spar.; Section 2.2, The junction elements between the spar and the rib-posts are modelled by using special connection elements available in the solver code (meshless rivets12))
Regarding Claim 8, Airoldi teaches:
wherein the plurality of fastener elements are represented in the electronic design model as a plurality of fastener element models. (Section 2.1, In the complete structure the spar is included in the wing box, so that additional loads will be transmitted by the upper and lower panels, which are riveted to the flange of the spar.; Section 2.2, The junction elements between the spar and the rib-posts are modelled by using special connection elements available in the solver code (meshless rivets12))
Regarding Claim 10, Airoldi teaches:
wherein the at least two structural elements are represented in the electronic design model as at least two structural element models. (Fig. 1; Section 2.1, The structural element taken into consideration in this work is a 3 m long spar, made of carbon reinforced composite, with a tapered C-section, shown in Fig. 1. Such element is the forward spar of a wing-box designed to support morphing aerodynamic surfaces; Section 2.1, Ribs, which are numbered in Fig. 1, are connected to the spar through a system of rib-posts, which consist of pairs of machined metallic elements, joined to the internal surface of the spar and to the ribs.; Table 3)
Regarding Claim 13, Airoldi teaches:
wherein the select location comprises at least one of a select surface location of the at least two structural elements, a select interior location of the at least two structural elements, a select gap location between the at least two structural elements and a select overlap location for two or more structural elements of the at least two structural elements. (Fig. 2, Position of strain sensors on the spar surfaces)
Regarding Claim 14, Airoldi teaches:
wherein the at least one simulated load comprises at least one of a simulated thermal load, a simulated hygric load, a simulated mechanical load, a simulated structural load and a simulated axial load. (Section 2.2, In this study, the parameterized load system will be based on a set of concentrated forces components that are transmitted to the spar element at 6 points in correspondence of the connections with the ribs. Force resultant will be considered applied to the shear center of the local sections, which have been first roughly estimated by using an analytical procedure based on semi-monocoque theory and then verified by means of the finite element model of the spar that has been developed for the implementation of the procedure.)
Regarding Claim 15, Airoldi teaches:
wherein the detected load conditions comprise at least one of a displacement condition, a rotation condition, a stiffness condition, a clamp-up condition, a deformation condition and a damage state condition. (Section 2.3, Moreover, the displacements of the spar will also be available, thus completing the task of a detailed usage monitoring of the structural element. Indeed, if only the strains or the displacement at discrete points are required, influence matrix coefficients can be created to accomplish the reconstruction task in an extremely short time.; Section 3.3, The maps reported in Fig. 16 are referred to the same virtual test case and document the reconstruction of the displacement fields ... Finally, it has been proved that the procedure can also be used for a robust and computationally efficient identification of the displacement at selected loacation of the subcomponent.)
Regarding Claim 16, Airoldi teaches:
wherein the at least one sensor element model comprises a zero-stiffness model that has no effect on the detected load conditions. (Fig. 2; examiner notes that the reference does not account for the sensors in its load calculations, and as such, is handling them in a manner equivalent to them being "zero-sitffness".)
Regarding Claim 17, Airoldi teaches:
wherein the at least one sensor element model comprises at least one of a one-dimensional element model and a two-dimensional element model. (Fig. 2, Position of strain sensors on the spar surfaces; Section 4.1 two types of sensors are considered in the monitoring systems, namely longitudinal sensors, which measures strains ɛxx, and rosettes that can measure γxy components. Figures 18-(b) and 18-(c) represent the positions of such sensors on the surface of the spar within a generic bay ... the longitudinal sensors are distributed in the 6 available ribbon lines; Fig. 18 examiner notes the illustrated sensors are one-dimensional lines for the ribbons or two dimensional squares for the rosettes.)
Regarding Claim 18, Airoldi teaches:
wherein the at least one sensor element model is representative of at least one of a strain measurement device, an extensometer, a strain gauge, a strain transducer, a load sensor, a load cell, a force sensor, a piezoresistive force sensor, a torque sensor, a torque transducer, a torque cell, a stiffness sensor and a tactile sensor. (Section 1, based on Fiber Bragg gratings (FBG), which are inscribed on the optical fibers at selected locations and can measure localized strains.)
Regarding Claim 23, Airoldi teaches:
validating the electronic design model of the fastened structure where the detected load conditions are within a predetermined tolerance of the predetermined measurement thresholds. (Equation 10; The multi-objective optimization has been conducted by applying the genetic algorithms procedures available in Matlab © code. The optimized configuration of the monitoring system has been identified by considering a set of 5 realistic load conditions for the spar, which have been derived from the application of realistic external loads to the complete model of the wing-box, that has been described in previous works8.; Fig. 19, Pareto’s front representing optimal trade-off between number of sensors and accuracy (a) and optimal configuration with 74 sensors; Section 4.2, The results are particularly interesting, since they show that a relatively small number of sensors can be used to reach a quasi-optimal level of accuracy. In particular, a configuration using 74 sensors has been selected, which achieves a level of accuracy very close to the ones obtained with the maximum number of active sensors.)
Regarding Claim 24, Airoldi teaches:
changing the electronic design model of the fastened structure to form a revised design model of a revised structure where the detected load conditions are not within a predetermined tolerance of the predetermined measurement thresholds; and (Equation 10; The multi-objective optimization has been conducted by applying the genetic algorithms procedures available in Matlab © code. The optimized configuration of the monitoring system has been identified by considering a set of 5 realistic load conditions for the spar, which have been derived from the application of realistic external loads to the complete model of the wing-box, that has been described in previous works8.; Fig. 19, Pareto’s front representing optimal trade-off between number of sensors and accuracy (a) and optimal configuration with 74 sensors; Section 4.2, The results are particularly interesting, since they show that a relatively small number of sensors can be used to reach a quasi-optimal level of accuracy. In particular, a configuration using 74 sensors has been selected, which achieves a level of accuracy very close to the ones obtained with the maximum number of active sensors.)
repeating the method for analysis of the fastened structure based on the revised design model of the revised structure. (Equation 10; The multi-objective optimization has been conducted by applying the genetic algorithms procedures available in Matlab © code. The optimized configuration of the monitoring system has been identified by considering a set of 5 realistic load conditions for the spar, which have been derived from the application of realistic external loads to the complete model of the wing-box, that has been described in previous works8.; Fig. 19, Pareto’s front representing optimal trade-off between number of sensors and accuracy (a) and optimal configuration with 74 sensors; Section 4.2, The results are particularly interesting, since they show that a relatively small number of sensors can be used to reach a quasi-optimal level of accuracy. In particular, a configuration using 74 sensors has been selected, which achieves a level of accuracy very close to the ones obtained with the maximum number of active sensors.)
Regarding Claim 25, Airoldi teaches:
wherein the electronic design model is changed by at least one of changing one or more structural element of the at least two structural elements, changing one or more fastener element of the plurality of fastener elements, adding one or more fastener element to the plurality of fastener elements and removing one or more fastener element from the plurality of fastener elements. (Equation 10; The multi-objective optimization has been conducted by applying the genetic algorithms procedures available in Matlab © code. The optimized configuration of the monitoring system has been identified by considering a set of 5 realistic load conditions for the spar, which have been derived from the application of realistic external loads to the complete model of the wing-box, that has been described in previous works8.; Fig. 19, Pareto’s front representing optimal trade-off between number of sensors and accuracy (a) and optimal configuration with 74 sensors; Section 4.2, The results are particularly interesting, since they show that a relatively small number of sensors can be used to reach a quasi-optimal level of accuracy. In particular, a configuration using 74 sensors has been selected, which achieves a level of accuracy very close to the ones obtained with the maximum number of active sensors.)
Regarding Claim 26, Airoldi teaches:
wherein the at least one sensor element model comprises a plurality of sensor element models. (Fig. 2, Position of strain sensors on the spar surfaces)
Regarding Claim 27, Airoldi teaches:
determining distributed load conditions for the fastened structure based on the load conditions detected by the plurality of sensor element models; and (Section 4.1, Since the types and the potential positions of the sensors are fixed in the proposed monitoring system, the optimization procedure is required to define which positions are occupied by active sensors. … The optimization process is actually a multi-objective optimization problem, where both the number of sensors, N, and a measure of the error related to strain field reconstruction, e, have to be minimized.; Section 4.1, The evaluation of the target strains requires 5 finite element analyses, but then the availabilty of the complete matrix [a], for all the potential active position of the sensors, makes possible the evaluation of the objective function without any additional finite element computation, so that a large number of configurations can be explored in a relatively small computation time.; Fig. 19)
comparing the distributed load conditions to predetermined distributed thresholds for the distributed load conditions. (Fig. 19, Pareto’s front representing optimal trade-off between number of sensors and accuracy (a) and optimal configuration with 74 sensors; Section 4.2, a configuration using 74 sensors has been selected, which achieves a level of accuracy very close to the ones obtained with the maximum number of active sensors. The selected configuration, which is represented in Fig. 19-(b) is characterized by the activation of a large number of shear strain sensors and only two longitudinal strain sensors, in two bays close to the spar root.)
Regarding Claim 32, Airoldi teaches:
A fastened structure management system, comprising: (Section 2.2, In this study, the parameterized load system will be based on a set of concentrated forces components that are transmitted to the spar element at 6 points in correspondence of the connections with the ribs. Force resultant will be considered applied to the shear center of the local sections, which have been first roughly estimated by using an analytical procedure based on semi-monocoque theory and then verified by means of the finite element model of the spar that has been developed for the implementation of the procedure.)
a computing system configured to run a design analysis application program; and (Section 4.2, Computations were run on a 2GHz, quad-core AMD A10-7700k CPU.)
a storage device in operative communication with the computing system; (Section 4.2, Computations were run on a 2GHz, quad-core AMD A10-7700k CPU.)
wherein, in conjunction with running the design analysis application program, the computing system is configured to: (Section 4.2, Computations were run on a 2GHz, quad-core AMD A10-7700k CPU.)
access an electronic design model of a fastened structure from a design computing system, the fastened structure comprising at least two structural elements assembled via a plurality of fastener elements, the electronic design model comprising structural element parameters for each structural element and fastener parameters for each fastener element, the structural element parameters and the fastener parameters are representative of characteristics and behaviors of the corresponding structural elements and the corresponding fastener elements in environments to which a built-up version of the fastened structure is expected to be exposed; (Section 2.2, The junction elements between the spar and the rib-posts are modelled by using special connection elements available in the solver code (meshless rivets12), which do not require the coincidence of the nodes in the two meshes to be connected.; Section 2.3, Moreover, the details of the physical connections between the ribs and the spar introduce a variation of the strain field that can be formalized by introducing a set of influence coefficients βjj, referred to each one of the M Fj components.)
embed at least one sensor element model within the electronic design model, each sensor element model is embedded at a select location relating to a select joint between two or more structural elements of the at least two structural elements, the at least one sensor element model configured to monitor measurement parameters at the select location in response to one or more simulated load applied to the electronic design model; (Section 2.1, A set of N strain sensor constitutes a virtual strain monitoring systems, which is supposed to be based on Fiber Bragg Gratings (FBG) inscribed on optical fibers that are applied to the surfaces of the spar … Therefore, optical rosettes can also be applied at selected web locations. Such sensors are fundamental to detect the shear strain on the spar and are expected to play a crucial role, since the limited torsional stiffness of the open-section spar suggest a particular sensitivity to torsional loads.; Section 2.2, In this study, the parameterized load system will be based on a set of concentrated forces components that are transmitted to the spar element at 6 points in correspondence of the connections with the ribs)
apply at least one simulated load to the electronic design model; (Section 1, The density of sensors, the complexity of the systems and the difficulties related to their installations can be greatly reduced if the sensing system is designed to monitor the operational conditions of a component from a more general perspective, making possible a reconstruction of the load conditions and of the strain fields experienced by the structure during the operational life.; Section 2.2, In this study, the parameterized load system will be based on a set of concentrated forces components that are transmitted to the spar element at 6 points in correspondence of the connections with the ribs.)
monitor the measurement parameters using the at least one sensor element model to detect load conditions at the corresponding select location based on the at least one simulated load; and (Section 1, In the following section, the structural component and the architecture proposed for the monitoring system are presented, and the fundamental aspects of the numerical approach are discussed, including the selection of the reference finite element model that is adopted to implement the approach.; Section 2.2, Assuming a linear structural response, the strains acquired by monitoring system in a given generic load conditions are considered generated by the superposition of M strain contributions {ε*}i, each one corresponding to the strain field generated by the component Fj of the vector {F}.)
compare the detected load conditions to predetermined measurement thresholds for the monitored measurement parameters. (Section 5, The basic ingredients of the method are the development of a reference finite element model of the subcomponents, the application of a least square approach, possibly refined by the adoption of regularization procedures, and the introduction of an equivalent parameterized load system, which is required to represent the fundamental loading modes of the element to be monitored.; Section 5, The results achieved by using a quite limited number of sensors, about ten per each bay of the spar, are particularly promising to develop technologically feasible and relatively dense networks of sensors to monitor with good accuracy the complete strain state experienced by a structural subcomponent, thus providing an approach with a significant potential for the development of condition-based maintenance procedures and a reconstructed baseline to improve the probability of detection of damages in the hot spots of the structures, by means of more dense and possibly embedded sensors networks.; Section 1, Such approach could also provide the identification of nominal strain fields that could greatly enhance the probability of detection of damages by means of the recognition of local outliers originated by damage states.; Seciton 3.3, More differences exist in the reconstruction of the shear strain field, presented in Fig. 15-(b), where maximum discrepancies of 10% can be observed in some of bays. The maps reported in Fig. 16 are referred to the same virtual test case and document the reconstruction of the displacement fields.)
Regarding Claim 59:
Claim 59 is substantially similar to claim 32, and is rejected under the same grounds as those set forth for claim 32 above.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Airoldi (Airoldi, A., Marelli, L., Bettini, P., Sala, G., & Apicella, A. (2017, April). Strain field reconstruction on composite spars based on the identification of equivalent load conditions. In Sensors and Smart Structures Technologies for Civil, Mechanical, and Aerospace Systems 2017 (Vol. 10168, pp. 207-226). SPIE. Cited by Applicant on the IDS dated 10/11/2024.) in view of Daraji (Daraji, A. H., Hale, J. M., & Ye, J. (2021). Optimisation of energy harvesting for stiffened composite shells with application to the aircraft wing at structural flight frequency. Thin-Walled Structures, 161, 107392.).
Regarding Claim 12:
Airoldi does not teach in particular, but Daraji teaches:
wherein each sensor element model is represented in the electronic design model as a truss element, a beam element or a shell element. (Section 2.1, The modelling considers a composite shell stiffened by beams with a perfectly bonded piezoelectric sensor, as shown in Fig. 1 ... Twenty node isoparametric three-dimensional solid elements are used in modelling to discretise the shell, stiffener and sensor.; Fig. 2. (a) Aircraft composite wing structure, (b) Aircraft composite wing structure bonded with full coverage of 660 discrete DuraAct piezoelectric sensors (red, green and blue colours denote to discrete piezoelectric sensors, points of voltage measure on sensor electrodes and wing structure respectively).; Section 3, The structure and piezoelectric sensors are modelled using three-dimensional solid95 elements for the substrate of the passive structure and solid226 elements for the piezoelectric sensors, respectively.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the 3D geometric sensor modeling of Daraji to the simulations of Airoldi, in order to enable the simulation to find the optimal locations of piezoelectric sensors based on the maximisation of average percentage sensor effectiveness as an objective function (Daraji, Abstract).
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Airoldi (Airoldi, A., Marelli, L., Bettini, P., Sala, G., & Apicella, A. (2017, April). Strain field reconstruction on composite spars based on the identification of equivalent load conditions. In Sensors and Smart Structures Technologies for Civil, Mechanical, and Aerospace Systems 2017 (Vol. 10168, pp. 207-226). SPIE. Cited by Applicant on the IDS dated 10/11/2024.) in view of Gramuller (Gramüller, B., Stroscher, F., Schmidt, J., Ungwattanapanit, T., Löbel, T., & Hanke, M. (2015). Design process and manufacturing of an unmanned blended wing-body aircraft.).
Regarding Claim 19:
Airoldi does not teach in particular, but Gramuller teaches:
wherein the at least one sensor element model comprises at least one fastener element model associated with at least one fastener element model of the plurality of fastener elements. (p.9, Load analysis, Adhesive joints are modelled in the design proof FEM model with 3D elements.; p.9 Section 4.1.3 Proof of bolts, The utilized joint elements are divided into two groups, fasteners and bolts. Fasteners are applied to mount electronic equipment, sensors, like cameras and actuators and include small rivets, metal clips and plastic elements. Bolts are used to realize highly loaded structural joints and are needed to connect the attachments; Figs. 14 and 15)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the sensor associated fasteners and their associated modeling from Gramüller to the simulations of Airoldi, as determination of both adhesive material data and joints strength for different loading conditions is needed in analysis of load bearing composites (Gramüller, Section 4.1.2), and simulated stresses of fasteners/bolts are used to verify structural integrity (Gramüller, Section 4.1.3).
Regarding Claim 20:
Airoldi teaches:
wherein the fastener element model comprises a one-dimensional element model. (Section 2.2, The junction elements between the spar and the rib-posts are modelled by using special connection elements available in the solver code (meshless rivets12), which do not require the coincidence of the nodes in the two meshes to be connected.; Section 3.1, Accordingly, the same load systems that can be introduced through the rib-posts in the reference model, are applied in the surrogate model through much more deformable ribs, which are connected by means of meshless rivets to the post-ribs.)
Regarding Claim 21:
Airoldi teaches:
wherein the fastener element model comprises a calibrated model with fastener parameters representative of characteristics and behaviors of an actual fastener in environments to which the built-up version of the fastened structure is expected to be exposed such that the fastener element model responds to the at least one simulated load in a manner that effects the detected load conditions. (Section 3.2, The results reported in Table 3 are referred to the force components identified at rib #1, for different rib materials (composite, aluminum and steel) and for composite ribs wih a reduction of fasteners stiffness of 66% and 33% with respect to the original values. The signifcant variations in the force components confirm the influence of ribs’ and fasteners’ deformability on the load identifcation procedure, which reflects an influence on the strain fields on the spar surface.; Table 3)
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Airoldi (Airoldi, A., Marelli, L., Bettini, P., Sala, G., & Apicella, A. (2017, April). Strain field reconstruction on composite spars based on the identification of equivalent load conditions. In Sensors and Smart Structures Technologies for Civil, Mechanical, and Aerospace Systems 2017 (Vol. 10168, pp. 207-226). SPIE. Cited by Applicant on the IDS dated 10/11/2024.) in view of Gramuller (Gramüller, B., Stroscher, F., Schmidt, J., Ungwattanapanit, T., Löbel, T., & Hanke, M. (2015). Design process and manufacturing of an unmanned blended wing-body aircraft.), and further in view of Hexagon (Hexagon Software. (Jan 12, 2022). MSC Nastran 2021: Thermal Loading documentation [Computer software documentation]. Retrieved September 19, 2026, from https://nexus.hexagon.com/documentationcenter/en-US/bundle/MSC_Nastran_2021/page/Nastran_Combined_Book/release/ch11_misc/TOC.Thermal.Loading.for.xhtml).
Regarding Claim 22:
Airoldi does not teach in particular, but Hexagon teaches:
wherein the fastener element model comprises a zero-stiffness model that has no effect on the detected load conditions. (CFAST Fastener Property; the CFAST element utilizes CBUSH code ... there may be times when no explicit rotational stiffness is specified along a direction ... In modal analysis, a CBUSH of finite length having rotational degrees of freedom with no rotational stiffness ... This may result in coupling between translational and rotational degrees-of freedom even when no rotational stiffness (KR1-KR3) are specified.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use Hexagon Software's CFAST for modeling fasteners with the simulations of Airoldi as modified by Gramuller, as this is part of the MSC Nastran tool and would enable the modeling to be conducted. Further, setting the fastener stifness properties to zero is explicitly disclosed as an option in the Hexagon Software reference, and so renders using this option obvious in the combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIJAN MAPAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 11:00-8:30.
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.
/BIJAN MAPAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights