Ex Parte Gosse et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 201611555873 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation