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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/30/2023 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 5, 11-12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shu et al. (CN 105865915A, hereinafter referred to as “Shui”) (cited in IDS dated November 30, 2023) in view of Baizeau et al. ("Kinematic Field Measurements During Orthogonal Cutting Tests via DIC with Double-frame Camera and Pulsed Laser Lighting", EXPERIMENTAL MECHANICS, SPRINGER US, NEW YORK,
vol. 57, no. 4, 30 January 2017 (2017-01-30), pages 581-591, XP036175505, ISSN: 0014-4851, DOI: 10.1007/S11340-016-0248-9 [retrieved on 2017-01-30]”, hereinafter referred to as “Baizeau”).
Regarding claim 1, Shu teaches a system (Fig. 1) for determining constitutive parameters of a subject material, the system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a testbed (Fig. 1, 4) having an external surface configured to receive the subject material to couple the subject material (Fig. 1, 7) to the testbed (Fig. 1,4);
a deformation tool (Fig. 1, 1) configured to physically contact and plastically deform the subject material (Fig. 1, 7);
a force sensor unit (page 2, lines 18-20: F is the power of main shaft feedback) coupled to the deformation tool (Fig. 1, 1) and configured to produce a force sensor output (abstract: force sensor; page 2, lines 18-20: F is the power of main shaft feedback) corresponding to reactive forces applied to the deformation tool (Fig. 1, 1) from the subject material (Fig. 1, 7);
a camera unit (Fig. 1, 8) configured to produce an image sequence output of a deformation zone formed (page 8, lines 29-30: before and after utilizing deformation, digital picture carries out the base that coupling obtains the deformation data of measured object) between the deformation tool (Fig. 1, 1) and the subject material (Fig. 1, 7) in response to plastic deformation (para 8, lines 24-25: CCD as photoelectric sensing Deflection in device monitoring materials in tension and compression deformation process) of the subject material by the deformation tool (Fig. 1, 1); and
a computer system( Fig. 1, 6( coupled to the force sensor unit (page 2, lines 18-20: F is the power of main shaft feedback) and the camera unit (Fig. 1, 8) and comprising a parameter estimation module configured to estimate a constitutive parameter (page 9, lines 8-9: by displacement and load data the deformation data combining deformation pattern, quantitative scoring calculates softwood The mechanical property parameters of material) of the subject material (Fig. 1, 7) based on the force sensor output (page 2, lines 18-20: F is the power of main shaft feedback ) and the image sequence output (Fig. 1, 8; page 8, lines 22-23: this ccd video camera 8 is used for shooting soft Deformation pattern before and after material pressurization, and by deformation pattern transmission to computer 6).
Shu does not specifically teach that a linear drive configured to transport subject material, when coupled to the testbed, in a predefined direction at a predefined velocity and the transportation of the subject material in the predefined direction by the linear drive.
However, Baizeau teaches a linear drive (page 583, right column, lines 27- 29: the linear motor drive) configured to transport the subject material (page 583, right column, lines 1-3: a given cutting speed was achieved by translating the slide along the x-axis in the negative direction, note that the “given cutting material” in page 583, right column, lines 1-3 reads on “subject material”), when coupled to the testbed (Figs 1 and 3), in a predefined direction (page 583, right column, lines 27- 34: the x-axis in the negative direction) at a predefined velocity (page 583, right column, lines 27- 34: the maximum achievable cutting speed was 120 m/min) and the transportation of the subject material in the predefined direction (page 583, right column, lines 1-3: a given cutting speed was achieved by translating the slide along the x-axis in the negative direction) by the linear drive ( page 583, right column, lines 27- 29: the linear motor drive).
Shu and Baizeau are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of machining test. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the linear drive configured to transport the subject material such as is described in Baizeau into Shu, in order to carried out plastically deformation (Baizeau, Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Shu in view of Baizeau teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Shu teaches that the camera unit (Fig. 1, 8) comprises a magnification lens and a camera coupled the magnification lens (page 5, line 32: ccd video camera (8), note that “magnificent lens” are inherent functional property of CCD video camera).
Regarding claim 5, Shu in view of Baizeau teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Shu teaches that the deformation tool (Fig. 1, 1) comprises at least one of an indenter, and a cutting tool having a cutting face configured to cut into the subject material (Fig. 1, 7) at a predefined rake angle (page 9, lines 25-26: overall strain width includes bullet strain amplitude and plastic strain width, note that the above feature of “overall strain width includes bullet strain amplitude and plastic strain width” reads on at least one of an indenter, and a cutting tool having a cutting face configured to cut into the subject material at a predefined rake angle”).
Regarding claim 11, Shu in view of Baizeau teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Shu teaches that the computer system (Fig. 1, 6) comprises an image correlation module configured to apply an image correlation algorithm to the image sequence output (Fig. 1, 8; page 8, lines 22-23: this ccd video camera 8 is used for shooting soft Deformation pattern before and after material pressurization, and by deformation pattern transmission to computer) to produce a velocity field sequence (page 7, lines 26-27: the speed with a certain size is travelled forward by actuator main shaft) from the image sequence output (Fig. 1, 8; page 8, lines 22-23:see above).
Regarding claim 12, Shu in view of Baizeau teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Shu teaches that the image correlation module (Fig. 1, 6 and 8) is configured to determine a plastic strain rate field of the deformation zone (page 8, lines 22-23: shooting soft Deformation pattern before and after material pressurization) based on the application of the image correlation algorithm to the image sequence output (Fig. 1, 8; page 8, lines 22-23: this ccd video camera 8 is used for shooting soft Deformation pattern before and after material pressurization, and by deformation pattern transmission to computer, note that the above feature of “before and after material pressurization” reads on “image correlation algorithm”).
Regarding claim 19, Shu in view of Baizeau teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Shu teaches that the image sequence output (Fig. 1, 8; page 8, lines 22-23: this ccd video camera 8 is used for shooting soft Deformation pattern before and after material pressurization, and by deformation pattern transmission to computer) depicts a strain rate of the subject material of 102 per second or greater (page 7, lines 23-28: voice coil motor 1 is controlled by controller 2, and this controller 2 enters for the main shaft controlling voice coil motor Row linear motion…to controller 2 transmission speed mode instruction, the speed with a certain size is travelled forward by actuator main shaft; page 7, line 41: at high speed, to refer specifically to speed be 8000 μm/s to low strength, note that since Shu disclose that high speed be 8000 um/s, a strain rate of the subject material of 102 per second or greater would be an inherent functional properties or an obvious variation of such method).
Claims14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shu.
Regarding claim 14, Shu teaches a method for determining constitutive parameters of a subject material (Fig. 1), the method comprising:
(a) collecting a force sensor output from a force sensor unit for measuring reactive forces applied (page 2, lines 18-20: F is the power of main shaft feedback) to a deformation tool (Fig. 1, 1) from a subject material (Fig. 1, 7) travelling in a predefined direction (page 6, lines 15-16: the main shaft of voice coil motor is edge under the driving of controller Vertical direction to move along a straight line) relative to the deformation tool (Fig. 1, 1);
(b) collecting an image sequence output from a camera unit depicting a deformation zone formed (Fig. 1, 8; page 8, lines 22-23: this ccd video camera 8 is used for shooting soft Deformation pattern before and after material pressurization, and by deformation pattern transmission to computer) between the deformation tool (Fig. 1, 1) and the subject material (Fig. 1, 7) as the subject material is plastically deformed by the deformation tool (page 8, lines 22-23: this ccd video camera 8 is used for shooting soft Deformation pattern before and after material pressurization, and by deformation pattern transmission to computer); and
(c) estimating a constitutive parameter (page 9, lines 8-9: by displacement and load data the deformation data combining deformation pattern, quantitative scoring calculates softwood The mechanical property parameters of material) of the subject material (Fig. 1, 7) based on the force sensor output (page 2, lines 18-20: F is the power of main shaft feedback) and the image sequence output (Fig. 1, 8; page 8, lines 22-23: this ccd video camera 8 is used for shooting soft Deformation pattern before and after material pressurization, and by deformation pattern transmission to computer).
Regarding claim 15, it is dependent on claim 14 and has similar limitations as of claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 16, it is dependent on claim 14 and has similar limitations as of claim 6 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 20, it is a system type claim having similar limitations as of claim 14 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 14 above. The additional limitations of a processor (Fig 1, 6: computer), a storage device (page 8, line 41: memory) coupled to the processor (Fig 1, 6:computer), taught by Shu.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shu and Song et al. (KR 101954826 B1, hereinafter referred to as “Song”) (cited in IDS dated November 30, 2023).
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shu in view of Song et al. (KR 101954826 B1, hereinafter referred to as “Song”) (cited in IDS dated November 30, 2023).
Regarding claim 17, Shu in view of Song teaches all the limitation of claim 16. Shu do not specifically teaches minimizing an error between the predicted plastic work and the measured plastic work by iteratively adjusting the values of the constitutive parameters.
However, Song teaches minimizing an error between the predicted plastic work and the measured plastic work by iteratively adjusting the values of the constitutive parameters (page 10, lines 3-4: The visualization of the display step S300 may include comparing the information of the test step S100 and the analysis step S200 on one image in order to compare and analyze the information of the test step S100 and the analysis step S200 Means input; table 2 and table 3: Full Newton-Raphson).
Shu and Song are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of monitoring (or testing) material deformation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the minimizing the error between the predicted plastic work and the measured plastic work such as is described in Song into Shu, in order to allow the degree of deformation of the scaffold (i.e. subjected material) to be adjusted at a predetermined speed (Song, page 3, line 26)).
Regarding claim 18, Shu teaches all the limitation of claim 14. Shu does not specifically teach (c1) selecting a constitutive law based on the identity of the subject material; (c2) tailoring an optimization algorithm based on the selected constitutive law; and (c3) applying the tailored optimization algorithm to an objective function defining an error between a predicted plastic work determined from the force sensor output and a measured plastic work determined from a selected constitutive model, the image sequence output, and an initial estimate of the constitutive parameter to minimize the error.
However, Song teaches (c1) selecting a constitutive law based on the identity of the subject material (table 2 and 3, element type ); (c2) tailoring an optimization algorithm based on the selected constitutive law (table 2 and 3full newton-Raphson); and (c3) applying the tailored optimization algorithm to an objective function defining an error between a predicted plastic work determined (page 10, lines 3-4: the visualization of the display step S300 may include comparing the information of the test step S100 and the analysis step S200 on one image in order to compare and analyze the information of the test step S100 and the analysis step S200 Means input ) from the force sensor output (page 8, lines 27-28: the linear variable differential transformer (LVDT) may be used as a means for measuring the degree of strain) and a measured plastic work determined from a selected constitutive model (Fig. 1, S100 and S200), the image sequence output (Fig. 1, S300), and an initial estimate of the constitutive parameter to minimize the error (table 2 and 3full newton-Raphson).
Shu and Song are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of monitoring (or testing) material deformation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method for determining constitutive parameters of a subject material such as is described in Song into Shu, in order to allow the degree of deformation of the scaffold (i.e. subjected material) to be adjusted at a predetermined speed (Song, page 3, line 26)).
Claims 3-4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shu in view of Baizeau and Fu et al. (CN 109470560 A, hereinafter referred to as “Fu”) (cited in IDS dated November 30, 2023).
Regarding claim 3, Shu in view of Baizeau teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Shu teaches that the image sequence output at least one of visually (Fig. 1, 8; page 8, lines 22-23: this ccd video camera 8 is used for shooting soft Deformation pattern before and after material pressurization, and by deformation pattern transmission to computer 6 ) depicts the deformation zone (page 9, lines 8-9: by displacement and load data the deformation data combining deformation pattern, quantitative scoring calculates softwood The mechanical property parameters of material).
Shue and Baizeau do not specifically teach thermally depicting the deformation zone.
However, Fu teaches thermally depicting the deformation zone (page 7, lines 25-27: sample generates heat under the effect of its own resistance, to realize the high temperature deformation of sample Metallographic microstructure is observed under state, and specimen temperature is measured by temperature sensor 8).
Shu and Fu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of material mechanical performance analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the thermally depicting the deformation zone such as is described in Fu into Shu, in order to carried out with certain bending/compression speed Plastic deformation shoots with video-corder material metallographic microstructure consecutive variations picture using metallographic microscope and digital photo, video system, simultaneously (Fu, page 3, lines 26-28).
Regarding claim 4, Shu in view of Baizeau teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Shu teaches the camera unit (Fig. 1, 8).
Shu and Baizeau do not specifically teach a thermal sensor for monitoring a temperature of the deformation zone.
However, Fu teaches a thermal sensor for monitoring a temperature of the deformation zone (page 7, lines 25-27: sample generates heat under the effect of its own resistance, to realize the high temperature deformation of sample Metallographic microstructure is observed under state, and specimen temperature is measured by temperature sensor).
Shu and Fu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of material mechanical performance analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the thermal sensor such as is described in Fu into Shu, in order to carried out with certain bending/compression speed Plastic deformation shoots with video-corder material metallographic microstructure consecutive variations picture using metallographic microscope and digital photo, video system, simultaneously (Fu, page 3, lines 26-28).
Regarding claim 13, Shu in view of Baizeau teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Shu teaches the constitutive parameter comprises at least one of a yield strength, a hardening modulus, a strain-rate sensitivity, a strain-hardening (para 8, lines 24-25: CCD as photoelectric sensing Deflection in device monitoring materials in tension and compression deformation process).
Shue and Baizeau do not specifically teach a thermal-softening of the subject material.
However, Fu teaches a thermal-softening of the subject material (page 7, lines 25-27: sample generates heat under the effect of its own resistance, to realize the high temperature deformation of sample Metallographic microstructure is observed under state, and specimen temperature is measured by temperature sensor, note that since Fu teaches thermal sensor to observe the high temperature deformation of material, a thermal-softening of the subject material is an inherent functional property or obvious variation of such method).
Shu and Fu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of material mechanical performance analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the thermal-softening of the subject material such as is described in Fu into Shu, in order to carried out with certain bending/compression speed Plastic deformation shoots with video-corder material metallographic microstructure consecutive variations picture using metallographic microscope and digital photo, video system, simultaneously (Fu, page 3, lines 26-28).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shu in view of Baizeau and Song et al. (KR 101954826 B1, hereinafter referred to as “Song”) (cited in IDS dated November 30, 2023).
Regarding claim 6, Shu in view of Baizeau teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Shu teaches that the parameter estimation module of the computer system (Fig. 1, 6) is configured to determine a measured plastic work (page 9, lines 25-26: overall strain width includes bullet strain amplitude and plastic strain width) based on the force sensor output (abstract: force sensor; page 2, lines 18-20: F is the power of main shaft feedback) and the image sequence output (Fig. 1, 8; page 8, lines 22-23: this ccd video camera 8 is used for shooting soft Deformation pattern before and after material pressurization, and by deformation pattern transmission to computer 6).
Shue and Baizeau do not specifically teach a predicted plastic work based on a selected constitutive model, and to compare the measured plastic work with the predicted plastic work.
However, Song teaches a predicted plastic work based on a selected constitutive model, and to compare the measured plastic work with the predicted plastic work (page 4, lines 37-38: the visualization of the display step S300 may include comparing the information of the test step S100 and the analysis step S200 on one image in order to compare and analyze the information of the test step S100 and the analysis step S200 Means input).
Shu and Song are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of monitoring (or testing) material deformation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the comparing the measured plastic work with the predicted plastic work such as is described in Song into Shu, in order to allow the degree of deformation of the scaffold (i.e. subjected material) to be adjusted at a predetermined speed (Song, page 3, line 26)).
Regarding claim 7, Shu in view of Baizeau and Song teaches all the limitation of claim 6, in addition, Shu teaches that the parameter estimation module of the computer system (page 6, line 10: computer program) is configured to provide an initial estimate of the constitutive parameter (page 9, lines 8-9: by displacement and load data the deformation data combining deformation pattern, quantitative scoring calculates softwood The mechanical property parameters of material), and wherein the predicted plastic work (page 9, lines 8-9: see above) is based on the initial estimate (page 9, lines 8-9: see above) and the image sequence output (Fig. 1, 8; page 8, lines 22-23: this ccd video camera 8 is used for shooting soft Deformation pattern before and after material pressurization, and by deformation pattern transmission to computer).
Regarding claim 8, Shu in view of Baizeau and Song teaches all the limitation of claim 7, in addition, Shu teach the computer system (Fig. 1; Fig, 1, 6). Shu does not specifically teach minimizing an error between the predicted plastic work and the measured plastic work.
However, Song teaches minimizing an error between the predicted plastic work and the measured plastic work (table 2 and table 3: Full Newton-Raphson).
Shu and Song are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of monitoring (or testing) material deformation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the minimizing the error such as is described in Song into Shu, in order to allow the degree of deformation of the scaffold (i.e. subjected material) to be adjusted at a predetermined speed (Song, page 3, line 26)).
Regarding claim 9, Shu in view of Baizeau and Song teaches all the limitation of claim 8, in addition, Shu teach the computer system (Fig. 1; Fig, 1, 6). Shu does not specifically teach applying a Newton-Raphson algorithm to an objective function defining the error between the predicted plastic work and the measured plastic work to minimize the error.
However, Song teaches applying a Newton-Raphson algorithm to an objective function defining the error between the predicted plastic work and the measured plastic work to minimize the error (table 2 and table 3: Full Newton-Raphson ).
Shu and Song are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of monitoring (or testing) material deformation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the applying the Newton-Raphson algorithm such as is described in Song into Shu, in order to allow the degree of deformation of the scaffold (i.e. subjected material) to be adjusted at a predetermined speed (Song, page 3, line 26)).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shu in view of Baizeau, Son, and Raghunathan et al. (US 2015/0199606 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Raghunathan”).
Regarding claim 10, Shu in view of Baizeau and Song teaches all the limitation of claim 8, in addition, Shu teach the computer system (Fig. 1; Fig, 1, 6).
Shu, Baizeau, and Song do not specifically teach applying a spatial Branch-and-Bound to an objective function defining the error between the predicted plastic work and the measured plastic work to minimize the error.
However, Raghunathan teaches applying a spatial Branch-and-Bound to an objective function defining the error between the predicted plastic work and the measured plastic work to minimize the error (para. [0005]: OPF problem can be solved based on the spatial branch and bound framework; para.[0011]: A spatial branch and bound (BB) procedure ensures that a globally optimal solution is attained).
Shu and Raghunathan are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of minimizing a cost function. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the applying the spatial Branch-and-Bound to an objective function such as is described in Raghunathan into Shu, in order to search for the global minimum (Raghunathan, para. [0005]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Goenezen at al. (US 2018/0306691 A1) teaches that systems and methods disclosed herein enable the characterization of material property distribution across a sample to ensure sample consistency and/or to detect and characterize anomalies including tumors, inclusions, cracks, changes in structural stiffness in samples capable to experience deformation. The boundary displacement data is collected using a plurality of induced deformations at a plurality of angles and locations relative to surfaces/boundaries of the sample, and the data is transformed to determine material properties of the sample using numerical techniques and material modeling.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGKYUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, LEE RODARK can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/SANGKYUNG LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights