DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is a first Office Action on the merits of the application. Claims 1 - 5 are presented for examination. Claims 1 - 5 are rejections.
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 .
Drawings Objection
The drawings are objected to because the words and variables recited in each box of the flow chart in FIG. 1 are blurry and difficult to read. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1, applying step 1, the preamble of claim 1 claims a system so this claim falls within the statutory category of a process.
In order to apply step 2A prong 1, a recitation of claim 1 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
The claim recites:
A design method for an allowable compressive stress of an axially compressed
cylinder, comprising the following steps:
S1, determining structural characteristic parameters and material performance
parameters of the axially compressed cylinder according to design requirements, wherein the structural characteristic parameters comprise a radius R, a length L and a thickness l, and the material performance parameters comprise an elastic modulus E, a Poisson's ratio v and a yield strength ReL;
S2, calculating a value of a parameter n representing structural characteristics of
the axially compressed cylinder;
PNG
media_image1.png
64
80
media_image1.png
Greyscale
S3, calculating a theoretical value σᵣᵣ of an ideal elastic buckling stress of the axially compressed cylinder according to the value of n in step S2;
wherein for a short cylinder with n≤1.7, a theoretical value σᵣᵣ of the buckling
stress is calculated as follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
62
194
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein for a medium-long cylinder with 1.7<n<0.5R/t, a theoretical value σᵣ
of the buckling stress is calculated as follows:
PNG
media_image3.png
42
124
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, and
wherein for a long cylinder with n>0.5R/t a theoretical value σᵣᵣ of the buckling
stress is calculated as follows:
PNG
media_image4.png
58
182
media_image4.png
Greyscale
where
PNG
media_image5.png
36
256
media_image5.png
Greyscale
where Bₓᵇ is a coefficient considering influence of cylinder boundary conditions;
S4, calculating a value of a parameter γ representing an elastic-plastic behavior of the axially compressed cylinder as follows:
PNG
media_image6.png
42
150
media_image6.png
Greyscale
S5, calculating a critical buckling stress σarcU of the axially compressed cylinder
under different buckling failure modes, considering influence of material elasticity and
structural length-diameter ratio;
wherein for a cylinder with plastic buckling of r0.2, a σarcU value is calculated as
follows:
PNG
media_image7.png
26
100
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein for a cylinder with elastic-plastic buckling of 0.2<y≤1.2, a σarcU value is
calculated as follows:
PNG
media_image8.png
32
386
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and
wherein for a cylinder with elastic buckling of γ>1.2, a U value is calculated as
follows:
PNG
media_image9.png
42
266
media_image9.png
Greyscale
S6, calculating values of structural characteristic boundary points ηE and ηP when
the cylinder undergoes plastic buckling, elastic-plastic buckling and elastic buckling;
PNG
media_image10.png
128
250
media_image10.png
Greyscale
S7, determining a buckling stress reduction factor calculation model ρKDF selected
for the cylinder considering the influence of initial defects according to the value of η;
wherein for a cylinder with
PNG
media_image11.png
16
34
media_image11.png
Greyscale
, a value of ρKDF is calculated as follows:
PNG
media_image12.png
24
284
media_image12.png
Greyscale
wherein a cylinder with
PNG
media_image13.png
20
54
media_image13.png
Greyscale
, a value of PKDF is calculated as follows:
PNG
media_image14.png
46
286
media_image14.png
Greyscale
where
PNG
media_image15.png
24
372
media_image15.png
Greyscale
and
wherein for a cylinder with
PNG
media_image16.png
20
102
media_image16.png
Greyscale
, ρKDF 0.9; and
S8, calculating an allowable compressive stress value [σarc] of the axially compressed cylinder based on the critical buckling stress σarcU considering the influence of material elasticity and structural length-diameter ratio, and based on a critical buckling stress reduction factor PKDF and a design safety factor nab considering
the influence of initial defects as follows:
PNG
media_image17.png
46
138
media_image17.png
Greyscale
wherein the design safety factor nab is 2.0.
Under Step 2A, prong one, the limitations in S1 is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process. The limitation, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, but for the recitation of computer components or a generic computer. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a person, while viewing a computer, could mentally provide a judgment or evaluation of design requirements to determine its structural characteristic parameters and material performance parameters.
In addition, S2 - S8 are abstract ideas because they are directed to mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), in the form of mathematical calculations. The limitations, as drafted, are directed to performing mathematical calculations using the equations in each limitation of the claim.
Under Step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional language in the claimed limitation provides descriptions of the variables in the claim. Individually, the claim recites a mathematical concept without significantly more.
For Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as explained above, the additional language in the claim provides descriptions of the variables in the claim, without adding significantly more.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 2, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 1, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claim 1, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 2 recites a plurality of results of a calculation, used in performing another calculation, and a description of each result of the calculation, without providing any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 3, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 1, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claim 1, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 3 recites a range of values for performing a calculation, without providing any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 4, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 1, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claim 1, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 4 recites a range of values for performing a calculation, without providing any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 5, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 1, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claim 1, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 5 recites a description of an element for which calculations performed are in reference to, without providing any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as providing the material in which the cylinder is made of does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 - 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 lacks antecedent basis for “comprising the following steps” (Line 2).
Dependent claims 2 - 5 are rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claim 1.
Suggested language: Amend the language to recite “comprising
Claim 1 lacks antecedent basis for “considering the influence of initial defects” (Lines 44 and 54 - 55).
Dependent claims 2 - 5 are rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claim 1.
Suggested language: Amend the language to recite “considering
Claim 2 recites “simply supported”, but it is unclear in the claim and specification what is meant by an end of a cylinder being “simply supported”. The phrase is unclear and renders the claim vague and indefinite.
Claim 2 recites “fixedly supported”, but it is unclear in the claim and specification what is meant by an end of a cylinder being “fixedly supported”. The phrase is unclear and renders the claim vague and indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 - 5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 1: The prior art of Wang et al (U.S. PG Pub 2016/0187230 A1) discloses load positions in the axial and circumferential directions for a cylindrical shell calculated, optimization to minimize a buckling load, knockdown factor (KDF), Ansari et al. (“Design Considerations for Composite Cylindrical Shells on Elastic Foundations Subject to Compression Buckling”) discloses elastic boundaries, Knockdown Factor (KDF), elastic stiffness of cylinders calculated, and boundary conditions, Huhne et al. (“Robust Design of Composite Cylindrical Shells under Axial Compression - Simulation and Validation”) discloses structural behavior regarding cylindrical shells, simulations, stability analysis, perturbation load patterns, post-buckling pattern, and Tahir et al. (“Application of Artificial Neural Network to Predict Buckling Load of Thin Cylindrical Shells under Axial Compression”) discloses comparing buckling of thin cylindrical shells using neural network and experimental results as well as with design codes from NASA and Almorth-99.
` However, none of the references cited, including the prior art of Wang, Ansari, Huhne, and Tahir, taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record discloses a design method for an allowable compressive stress of an axially compressed cylinder, including the steps of using design information including material performance parameters and structural characteristics for an axially compressed cylinder to obtain values for buckling stress, critical buckling stress under different value modes based on using a structural length-diameter ratio and material elasticity influence, obtaining a model representing a buckling stress reduction factor, and using a design safety factor, along with structural length-diameter ratio, buckling stress reduction factor, and any initial defects to obtain the allowable compressive stress value for the cylinder, along with each of the equations in combination to perform the calculations to obtain the results to perform additional calculations in the claim to calculate ethe allowable compressive stress value, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicants’ invention defines over the prior art of record.
Dependent claims 2 - 5 are allowable under 35 U.S.C. 103 for depending from claim 1, an allowable base claim under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRIC D JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7089. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 4:30am - 2:00pm, F 4:30am - 11:30am.
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 at 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.
/Cedric Johnson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
September 27, 2026
