Ex Parte Hallquist

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 6, 2016

13482872 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/482,872 05/29/2012 John O. Hallquist LSTC-066 6752
103523 7590 12/08/2016
Livermore Software Technology Corp.
Attn: Roger Chu
P.O. Box 712
Livermore, CA 94551
EXAMINER
ROGERS, DAVID M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2123
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/08/2016 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):
rogerchu @ lstc .com
roger. chu .patent @ gmail. com
rogerchu 168 @ gmail. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN O. HALLQUIST
Appeal 2016-002751
Application 13/482,872
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1-11 and 13-15,2 which are all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Livermore Software
Technology Corporation. (App. Br. 1.)
2 Claim 12 was cancelled previously. (See Final Office Action (mailed Jan.
16, 2015) (“Final Act.”) 2.)
Appeal 2016-002751
Application 13/482,872
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosed invention relates “to computer aided
engineering analysis, more particularly to methods and systems for
conducting a numerical simulation of a structure having heat-affected zone,
which is located in the vicinity of heat sources (e.g., welding).” (May 29,
2012 Specification (“Spec.”) 11.) Claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced
below:
1. A method of conducting numerical simulation of a
structure containing heat-affected zone (HAZ) using a finite
element analysis (FEA) model, said method comprising:
receiving, in a computer system having a FEA application
module installed thereon, a FEA model having at least a group
of finite elements configured for representing a welded part that
encompasses a HAZ and each of said group of finite elements
being configured with at least one integration point for numerical
integration in FEA, wherein the HAZ is located near at least one
heat source location;
associating a set of HAZ material properties to said group
of finite elements, wherein said set of HAZ material properties
represents the welded part's structural behavior inside and
outside of the HAZ;
determining corresponding numerical material properties
at each integration point by interpolating the associated set of
HAZ material properties using shortest heat-propagation
distance between said each integration point and the at least one
heat source location with an automated procedure that requires
no additional input after the HAZ material properties have been
defined, the shortest heat-propagation distance being measured
along a path on a surface including the surface’s curvature effect,
wherein the path connects said each integration point and the at
least one heat source; and
2
Appeal 2016-002751
Application 13/482,872
conducting a numerical simulation of the structure using
the FEA model in the computer system with said corresponding
numerical material properties determined at said each integration
point.
Prior Art and Rejections on Appeal
The following table lists the prior art relied upon by the Examiner as
evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal:
Zhao et al. Finite element analysis of tailor-welded blanks, 37 Finite
(“Zhao”) Elements in Analysis and Design 117-30 (2001)
Hou et al. Finite element analysis for the mechanical features of
(“Hou”) resistance spot welding process, 185 Journal of
Materials Processing Technology 160-65 (2007)
Yoshida et al. US 2007/0199924 Al; Aug. 30, 2007
(“Yoshida”)
Dorum et al. Finite element analysis ofplastic failure in heat-affected
(“Dorum”) zone of welded aluminum connections, 88 Computers
and Structures 519-28 (2010)
Claims 1-5, 8-11, and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Dorum, in view of Yoshida, and further in view
of Hou. (See Final Act. 2-20.)
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dorum and Yoshida, in view of Hou, and further in view
of Zhao. (See Final Act. 20-24.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
3
Appeal 2016-002751
Application 13/482,872
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and the Examiner’s Answer
in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief and Reply Brief. (Final Act. 2-24;
Ans. 28-39.) However, we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments for emphasis as follows.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that:
Dorum and Yoshida do not expressly teach the shortest heat-
propagation distance being measured along a path on a surface
including the surface’s curvature effect[,] wherein the path
connects said each integration point and the at least one heat
source;
However Hou teaches the shortest heat-propagation distance
being measured along a path on a surface including the
surface's curvature effectf,] wherein the path connects said each
integration point and the at least one heat source .... The heat
propagation distance is necessarily through the elements in the
model and thus takes on the effects of the curvature caused by
the warping.
As is well known to those having ordinary skill in the art, the
heat moving through the finite elements is governed by the well-
known laws of thermodynamics. According to these laws, the
largest amount of heat flows through the heat conductors via
the shortest conductive path between the hottest and coldest
points (the sources and sinks of heat). Finite element analysis
accurately reflects these rules. Note that the heat flows through
the heat conductors, and follows the shapes of the conductors,
but the flow is through the shortest paths in these conductors.
Thus Hou teaches predicting that heat will follow the shortest
heat-propagation distance measured along a path on a surface
including the surface's curvature effect, where the path connects
each integration point and heat sources and sinks.
4
Appeal 2016-002751
Application 13/482,872
(Final Act. 7-8, original emphasis omitted, italics added.) Appellant
disagrees and contends that the cited references neither teach nor suggest the
underlined claim language:
the collective disclosure of Dorum, Yoshida and Hou fails to
teach or suggest a specific requirement to determine numerical
material properties at a particular integration point of a finite
element by interpolating the associated set of HAZ (Heat
Affected Zone) material properties using shortest heat-
propagation distance between the particular integration point and
the heat source, the shortest heat-propagation distance being
measured along a path on a surface including the surface's
curvature effect.
(App. Br. 5-7, emphasis in original.) According to Appellant,
Hou merely discloses the deformation would affect the properties
of the welded joint. Nowhere does Hou teach or suggest how to
determine the material properties at each integration point of a
finite element located within HAZ in the specific manner recited
in the underlined limitations set forth in claims 1, 14 and 15.
(Id. at 6, emphasis in original.) Appellant further contends that the
Examiner’s
assertions[, regarding the laws of thermodynamics,] appear to be
personal opinions instead of conclusions derived from
evidence^] . . . which is not derived from the cited references
[and that n]one of the alleged reasons in the OA is based on Hou,
because Hou does NOT teach or suggest the underlined
limitations of claims 1, 14 and 15.
(Id.) According to Appellant, this is because “the present invention as
claimed in [cjlaims 1, 14 and 15 is NOT related to heat flow or
thermodynamics [and] . . . that any teaching in an Electrical Engineering
textbook would not be related to limitation at issue whatsoever.” (Id. at 7.)
5
Appeal 2016-002751
Application 13/482,872
In other words, Appellant is contending that the Examiner erred in using the
laws of thermodynamics to explain the teachings of Hou.
Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred. We find the
Examiner’s explanation that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
that “heat moving through the finite elements is governed by the well-known
laws of thermodynamics” to be reasonable. We further agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Hou, and in particular Figure 10 of Hou, teaches or
suggests the limitation at issue. Appellant does not explain why “the present
invention as claimed in [cjlaims 1, 14 and 15 is NOT related to heat flow or
thermodynamics” when the claims themselves recite terms such as “shortest
heat-propagation distance,” etc. {Id. at 7—8.) Further, the Specification also
discusses the effects of heat-propagation from a heat source. {See, e.g.,
Spec. 114, 5,38; Fig. 3.)
Appellant further contends that “Hou offers no indication of how the
heat-propagation distance is measured to determine which of the material
properties to be used.” (Reply 3, emphasis added.) This is a new argument
that is raised in reply and is deemed waived. See In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367,
1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (noting that an argument not first raised in the brief to
the Board is waived on appeal); Ex parte Nakashima, 93 USPQ2d 1834,
1837 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (explaining that arguments and evidence
not timely presented in the principal Brief, will not be considered when filed
in a Reply Brief, absent a showing of good cause explaining why the
argument could not have been presented in the Principal Brief); Ex parte
Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1477 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“[pjroperly
interpreted, the Rules do not require the Board to take up a belated argument
that has not been addressed by the Examiner, absent a showing of good
6
Appeal 2016-002751
Application 13/482,872
cause.”). Even if we consider this new argument, “one cannot show non­
obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references.” See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Specifically, the Examiner relies on Dorum
for the “determining corresponding numerical material properties” portion of
the limitation. (Final Act. 4—5.)
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1, and thus we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 1. Appellant does not make any separate, substantive patentability
arguments regarding independent claims 14 and 15 and dependent claims 2-
11 and 13, but instead rely solely on the arguments raised with respect to
claim 1. (App. Br. 7.) Therefore, we also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejections of claims 2-11 and 13-15.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-11 and IS­
IS.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7