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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
line 3 should be amended to recite “…the uniaxial tensile test…”.
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities: all references to “the specimen” should be amended to recite “the round bar specimen”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A method for analyzing a contour of a round bar specimen during uniaxial tensile necking deformation, wherein the method analyzes, by conducting a uniaxial tensile test on a round bar specimen, a shape of the specimen during a necking stage in the round bar tensile test, and comprises the following steps:
step S1, analyzing a shape of a contour line of the specimen during the necking stage;
step S2, setting hypothetical conditions, setting a rotational generatrix of a contour of the specimen at a necking bottom during the necking stage to be S-shaped, and establishing a mathematical model for the rotational generatrix as shown in equation (1)
PNG
media_image1.png
73
176
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(1)
where r represents a cross-sectional radius perpendicular to a central axis at a position of any point on a contour curved surface of the specimen, z represents a distance between a cross-section at the any point and a minimum cross-section at the necking bottom, rn represents a maximum limit value of the cross-sectional radius perpendicular to the central axis, rc represents a minimum cross-sectional radius at the necking bottom, and z1, p1, z2, and p2 represent undetermined shape characteristic parameters;
step S3, measuring test data of the specimen that has undergone necking deformation, wherein the test data comprises at least the cross-sectional radius r and the cross-sectional distance z, and there are a plurality of measurement points; substituting the measured test data into equation (1) for fitting to determine values of rn, rc, and the shape characteristic parameters z1, p1, z2, and p2; and
step S4, substituting the values of rn, rc, and the shape characteristic parameters z1, p1, z2, and p2 determined in step S3 into equation (1) to obtain a curve model of the rotational generatrix.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Under Step 1 of the analysis, Claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a method claim.
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
In the instant case, claim 1 is found to recite at least one judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea), that being a Mental Process and/or a Mathematical Concept. This can be seen in the claim limitations of analyzing, setting, substituting, and substituting, which is the judicial exception of a mental process because these limitations are merely data observations, evaluations, and/or judgements in order to perform an analysis and is capable of being performed mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, the aforementioned limitations recite mathematical calculations, i.e., the claimed equation (1).
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claim 1, the claimed method recites additional elements including that the analysis is of “a contour of a round bar specimen during uniaxial tensile necking deformation, wherein the method analyzes, by conducting a uniaxial tensile test on a round bar specimen, a shape of the specimen during a necking stage in the round bar tensile test”; and “measuring test data of the specimen that has undergone necking deformation, wherein the test data comprises at least the cross-sectional radius r and the cross-sectional distance z, and there are a plurality of measurement points” however these elements are found to be mere data gathering, which is recited at a high level of generality, and thus merely amounts to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. The generic data gathering step is recited at such a high level of generality that it can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed method. For instance, nothing is done with the obtained curve model of the rotational generatrix.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely performs insignificant extra-solution activit(ies). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that Claim 1 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, Claims 2-18 mere merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Therefore, these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for parent claim 1. Specifically, Claims 2 and 10-18 are merely an attempt to generally link the judicial exceptions to a particular field of use. Claims 3-8 merely recite further details of the mental process/mathematical concepts. Claim 9 merely recites further details of the data gathering.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Yang (CN-109883823-A) and Guan (CN-109883824-A) each teach a generatrix equation for characterizing the profile of a metal round bar during necking (see paragraphs [0043]-[0047] of Yang, and paragraphs [0039]-[0043] of Guan).
Arsenjev, S. L., “To the Strength First Problem Full Solution: Mechanics of a Necking” (ARXIV physics/0609149, September 17, 2006) teaches mechanics of necking in a cylindrical rod.
Subject Matter Free of the Prior Art
The following is an examiner’s statement of subject matter free of the prior art: the steps S2-S4, including the claimed rotational generatrix equation (1), that are recited in independent Claim 1 were not found in the prior art. The most remarkable prior art of record are the Yang, Guan, and Arsenjev references, cited above in the Prior Art of Record section, which does not teach the claimed steps. However, further search/consideration may be required based on Applicant's amendments to the claims in view of the objections and the 101 rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA L DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am to 3pm.
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at (571)272-6334. 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.
/CYNTHIA L DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights