Ex Parte Gosse et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

11555873 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111555,873 11102/2006
67141 7590 11/02/2016
Boeing and Alston & Bird, LLP
BANK OF AMERICA PLAZA
101 SOUTH TRYON STREET, SUITE 4000
CHARLOTTE, NC 28280-4000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jonathan H. Gosse
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
038190/317974 7711
EXAMINER
SAXENA, AKASH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
usptomail@alston.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONATHAN H. GOSSE and
JEFFREY A. WOLLSCHLAGER
Appeal2015-002336
Application 11/555,873
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-002336
Application 11/555,873
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
The invention relates to using a computer for analyzing the load
capacity of a composite structural member (Spec. i-f 2). Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system for analyzing a load capacity of a composite
member comprising a plurality of fibers and a matrix material,
the system comprising a computer that comprises:
an input/output module for receiving model data from a
user;
a model generator module configured to provide an
interface via the input/output module and receive the model data
from the input/output module;
a database module including at least one database of
material properties for a plurality of composite materials;
a materials handler module configured to receive the
model data from the model generator module and retrieve
corresponding material property data from the database module;
an analysis module configured to perform a finite element
analysis of the model data according to the material property data
from the materials handler module to generate homogenized
analysis data representative of the composite member, including
a set of strain tensors for gauss points of the composite member;
a micro-mechanical enhancer analytical package module
configured to receive the homogenized analysis data and
generate enhanced analysis data, the enhanced analysis data
2
Appeal2015-002336
Application 11/555,873
including an enhanced set of strain tensors that is defined by
interactive micromechanical behavior of components of the
composite member under predefined thermal conditions and also
including another enhanced set of strain tensors that is defined
by the interactive micromechanical behavior of the components
of the composite member under mechanical conditions that
initiate failure of the composite member, said micro-mechanical
enhancer analytical package module configured to generate the
enhanced analysis data by multiplying the homogenized analysis
data by enhancement factors representative of amplified strains
at each of a plurality of locations within the fibers and the matrix
material of the composite member under the mechanical
conditions that initiate failure of the composite member and at
one or more temperatures; and
a SIFT analysis module configured to receive the
enhanced analysis data from the micromechanical enhancer
analytical package module and use a strain invariant failure
theory of analysis to generate results data representative of load
conditions resulting in damage instability in the composite
member,
the computer compnsmg a computer program product
comprising a computer-readable memory storing computer-
readable program code portions that comprise at least the model
generator module, the materials handler module, the analysis
module, the micro-mechanical enhancer analytical package
module and the SIFT analysis module.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
St. Ville US 7,203,628 Bl Apr. 10, 2007
Jonathan H. Gosse, "A Damage Functional Methodology for Assessing Post-
Damage Initiation Environments in Composite Structure" pub. by
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS (2004).
3
Appeal2015-002336
Application 11/555,873
T. E. Tay et al., "Element-Failure: An Alternative to Material Property
Degradation Method for Progressive Damage in Composite Structure" 39
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITE MATERIAL, (18) 1659-75 (2005).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 10-18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 1
Claims 1-3, 8, 10-12, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tay and St. Ville.
Claims 4--7, 9, 13-16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Tay, St. Ville, and Gosse.
ANALYSIS
The Non-Statutory Subject Matter Rejection
The Examiner asserts "a proper medium that qualifies as a patent
eligible process under 3 5 USC 101 must be non-transitory storage medium"
and finds "[b ]ecause the instant claims include medium that could involve
propagation signals, the claims are being held as non-statutory under 35
USC 101" (Final Act. 5). We disagree.
Appellants have amended claim 10 to include the limitation "the
computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable
storage medium" (Amendment filed Oct. 30, 2013) (emphasis added). We
agree with Appellants that the "non-transitory" language brings claim 10
within the realm of patent eligible subject matter (App. Br. 7), as suggested
1 The Examiner includes a portion in the Answer entitled "Withdrawn
Rejections"; however, the text of that portion states "Claims 10-18 and 20
remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to non-statutory subject matter" (Ans. 2) (emphasis added).
Accordingly, we consider that the Examiner has maintained the § 101
rejection and address it below.
4
Appeal2015-002336
Application 11/555,873
by the Examiner (Final Act. 5). The Examiner has not provided reasons
explaining why claim 10 continues to be directed to statutory subject matter,
despite Appellants' amendment (see Ans. 2).
We, thus, find the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 10
and dependent claims 11-18 and 20 as being directed to non-statutory
subject matter.
The Obviousness Rejections
Appellants contend:
[T]he micromechanical and thermomechanical amplification
factors are not described by the Tay article to be determined
under mechanical conditions that initiate failure of the composite
member. As such, the Tay article does not teach or suggest the
generation of an enhanced set of strain tensors under mechanical
conditions that initiate failure of the composite member, as
defined by independent Claim 1.
(App. Br. 9). Further, Appellants contend Tay does not teach "using the
resulting set of enhanced strain tensors generated under mechanical
conditions that initiate failure of the composite member to generate the
enhanced analysis data" (App. Br. 10). We are not persuaded by Appellants'
arguments.
We first note that claim 1 does not specifically define the "mechanical
conditions" under which strain tensors are generated. Rather, claim 1
generally defines the "mechanical conditions" in terms of a result: "initiate
failure of the composite member." Accordingly, we construe the
"mechanical conditions" language broadly, but reasonably, as requiring only
that some first step toward failure of a composite member occur during
generation of the strain tensors. Tay discloses the following:
5
Appeal2015-002336
Application 11/555,873
In a typical EFM analysis with SIFT, the initial FE analysis
without damage is performed, the results are processed through
the micromechanics amplification factor subroutine and the
location of initial damage is determined through comparison
with critical strain invariant values. The strains are extracted
from the centroid of each element. When SIFT determines
damage, the element nodal forces in the x-direction are zeroed
(defined within 5% of the original nodal force values in the same
direction), and this nodal force modification process takes a few
iterations. The program then determines the next element to fail
by SIFT and proceeds to modify the appropriate nodal forces,
and so on. If SIFT predicts no further damage, the applied force
or prescribed displacement may be increased until damage is
again predicted.
(Tay, pp. 1666-67). Tay also discloses:
The SIFT states that failure occurs when either of the three strain
invariant values reaches its respective critical values ... which
are determined from the analysis of coupon tests of composite
laminates with various layups . . . . It is clear from the foregoing
description that for each failure prediction, it is possible not only
to determine the invariant that has become critical, but also the
position within the micromechanical block model where this has
occurred.
(Tay, pp. 1669-70). As quoted here, we find Tay teaches generating strains
based on processing finite element analysis results for a composite member
through a micromechanics amplification factor subroutine. We agree with
the Examiner (see Final Act. 7-10) and find Tay's strains meet the limitation
of "enhanced analysis data" generated "by multiplying the homogenized
analysis data by enhancement factors representative of amplified strains at
each of a plurality of locations within the fibers and the matrix material of
the composite member," as recited in claim 1. We further find Tay suggests
the strains are generated "under mechanical conditions that initiate failure of
6
Appeal2015-002336
Application 11/555,873
the composite member," as recited in claim 1, because Tay describes
iterating through a progression of failed elements (see Tay, pp. 1666-67).
Indeed, the goal of Tay's analyzing the composite member is to determine
loading that results in failure at particular locations in the composite member
(see Tay, pp. 1669--70).
We disagree with Appellants' assertion that Tay's "Figure 3 relates to
the failure of a finite element, as opposed to the initiation of failure of the
composite member, as set forth by the independent claims" (Reply Br. 2).
According to the construction mentioned above, the claimed "mechanical
conditions that initiate failure of the composite member" (claim 1) covers
the occurrence of a first step that may lead to failure of the composite
member, and, thus, encompasses Tay's loading a composite member such
that a first finite element within the composite member fails in a progression
of failed elements (see Tay, pp. 1666-67).
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1, and claims 2-20 not specifically argued separately.
CONCLUSIONS
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10-18
and 20.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims
1-20.
7
Appeal2015-002336
Application 11/555,873
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20
is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8