Patent Drafting Analysis of Palo Alto Research Center’s Liquid-Gas Meniscus Dynamics Modeling | US 2024/0211655 A1
Patent Drafting Analysis of Palo Alto Research Center's Liquid-Gas Meniscus Dynamics Modeling | US 2024/0211655 A1
A structural and strategic analysis of US 2024/0211655 A1 covering claim architecture, drafting quality, critical gaps, and prosecution positioning for PARC's FEM-based meniscus oscillation damping computation technology.
Spec Words
7,200
Across 6 sections
Draft now ↗
Total Claims
34
4 independent · 30 dependent
Draft now ↗
Figure Sheets
9
System diagrams, nozzle geometry, flow diagrams, printer architecture, computer system
Draft now ↗
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · · 12 min read Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Overview
Structural Overview
The detailed description dominates at approximately 54% of total specification words (~3,900 of ~7,200), providing substantial mathematical and algorithmic grounding through eigenvalue problem formulations, FEM mesh generation, and Krylov-Schur solver details. The claim set comprises 34 claims total — 4 independent claims spanning method, apparatus, CRM, and a nozzle-specific method type — with a high dependent-to-independent ratio of 7.5:1. Figure coverage across 9 sheets addresses the physical system (FIGs. 1A–1B), nozzle geometry (FIGs. 2A–2B), process flows (FIGs. 3–4, 6), printer system architecture (FIG. 5), and computing hardware (FIG. 7), providing broad but not exhaustive visual support.
Section Word Distribution
↗ Click bars to exploreFigure Inventory — 9 Sheets
| Figure | Description | Role |
|---|---|---|
| FIG. 1A | Depicts a simplified liquid ejection system 10 showing reservoir 12, nozzle 14, droplets 20, and substrate 16 illustrating the drop-on-demand jetting concept.Search in Eureka ↗ | Key embodiment |
| FIG. 1B | Schematic cross-sectional view of a 3D printer 100 showing ejector 110, heating elements 130, metallic coils 134, nozzle 114, gas source 180, and computer-controlled motion system 190.Search in Eureka ↗ | System architecture |
| FIG. 2A | Depicts an example nozzle 200 with general non-axisymmetric shape, showing top opening 202, outlet 204, and central axis 206 for arbitrary 3D geometry embodiments.Search in Eureka ↗ | Claim support |
| FIG. 2B | Depicts axisymmetric nozzle shape 208 with domain Ω bounded by side wall Γw, top boundary Γt, and meniscus boundary Γm, showing the r-z coordinate system used in FEM formulation.Search in Eureka ↗ | Claim support |
| FIG. 3 | Process flow diagram for method 300 of determining meniscus damping rate, showing steps 302–314 from receiving input data through mesh generation, eigenvalue problem processing, mode identification, and liquid relaxation time output.Search in Eureka ↗ | Flow diagram |
| FIG. 4 | Process flow diagram for iterative nozzle geometry generation method 400, showing steps 402–416 including computing liquid relaxation time, threshold comparison, nozzle shape modification, prototype build and test, and design input modification loop.Search in Eureka ↗ | Flow diagram |
| FIG. 5 | Block diagram of printer system 500 showing reservoir 502, nozzle 504, ejector 508, substrate 506, motors 510, controller 512, lookup table 514, analyzer 516, and cameras 518 for real-time monitoring.Search in Eureka ↗ | System architecture |
| FIG. 6 | Process flow diagram for printer monitoring method 600, showing steps 602–616 including measuring meniscus dynamics via high-speed camera, lookup table query, issue detection, corrective action, and printing interruption logic.Search in Eureka ↗ | Flow diagram |
| FIG. 7 | Diagrammatic representation of computer system 700 showing processing device 702, main memory 704, static memory 706, data storage device 718 with machine-readable storage medium 728, network interface 708, and bus 730 architecture for executing nozzle simulator 727 instructions.Search in Eureka ↗ | System architecture |
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka. Patent text and figures publicly available from USPTO. Draft a Similar Patent
Claims
Claim Architecture Analysis
The claim set contains 4 independent claims — Claim 1 (method), Claim 13 (apparatus), Claim 20 (CRM), and Claim 27 (method specifically directed to drop-on-demand printer nozzles with liquid print material) — providing tripartite coverage across method, system, and storage medium types, plus a targeted nozzle-specific method. The dependent-to-independent ratio of 7.5:1 is above the typical G06F software/simulation norm of 4–6:1, reflecting layered fallback positions. Notably, Claims 27–34 duplicate much of the structure of Claims 1–12 but are specifically anchored to drop-on-demand printers with liquid print material, providing a prosecution-resistant narrower fallback that also strengthens commercial relevance.
Core inventive concept: The independent claims address the problem of computationally expensive CFD-based meniscus dynamics simulation by transforming the damping rate calculation into a discrete generalized eigenvalue problem solved via Finite Element Method (FEM) on a mesh conforming to the container shape, then computing nodal values for pressure, velocity, and meniscus surface deformation for the 'n least-damped late-time oscillation modes' and inverting the lowest damping rate to obtain the liquid relaxation time — as recited in Claims 1, 13, 20, and 27.
Independent Claim Dissection
| Claim | Preamble | Transition | Key Body Elements |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claim 1 | A method of determining the damping rate of unforced oscillations of a meniscus | comprising | receiving input (container shape, liquid physical parameters, equilibrium meniscus shape); generating conforming mesh with nodes; generating discrete eigenvalue problem from mesh; computing nodal values for pressure, velocity, meniscus deformation for n least-damped modes; computing angular frequency and damping rate; identifying mode with lowest damping rate; computing liquid relaxation time by inverting lowest damping rate; outputting liquid relaxation timeSearch prior art ↗ |
| Claim 13 | An apparatus for determining a damping rate of unforced oscillations of a meniscus | comprising | a memory; a processing device operatively coupled to memory; processing device configured to: receive input, generate conforming mesh, generate discrete eigenvalue problem, compute nodal values and angular frequency/damping rate for n least-damped modes, identify lowest-damping-rate mode, compute liquid relaxation time by inversion, output liquid relaxation timeSearch prior art ↗ |
| Claim 20 | A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processing device for determining a damping rate of unforced oscillations of a meniscus, cause the processing device to | comprising (implicit) | receive input (container shape, liquid parameters, equilibrium meniscus shape); generate conforming mesh; generate discrete eigenvalue problem; compute nodal values for pressure, velocity, meniscus deformation for n least-damped modes; compute angular frequency and damping rate; identify lowest-damping-rate mode; compute liquid relaxation time by inversion; output liquid relaxation timeSearch prior art ↗ |
| Claim 27 | A method of determining the damping rate of unforced oscillations of a meniscus of liquid print material formed in a nozzle of a drop-on-demand printer | comprising | receiving input (nozzle shape, liquid print material physical parameters, equilibrium meniscus shape); generating conforming mesh; generating discrete eigenvalue problem; computing nodal values for pressure, velocity, meniscus deformation for n least-damped modes of liquid print material; computing angular frequency and damping rate; identifying lowest-damping-rate mode; computing liquid relaxation time by inversion; outputting liquid relaxation timeSearch prior art ↗ |
Claim Dependency Tree
1 Method of determining damping rate of meniscus unforced oscillations via FEM eigenvalue problem and liquid relaxation time inversionSearch Claim 1 prior art ↗
2 Adds: in response to relaxation time above threshold, modify container shape and recomputeSearch in Eureka ↗
3 Adds: in response to relaxation time below threshold, output file describing container shapeSearch in Eureka ↗
4 Adds: liquid is molten metalSearch in Eureka ↗
5 Adds: container is a nozzle and meniscus is liquid-gas interface at nozzle outputSearch in Eureka ↗
6 Further: unforced oscillations result from simulated ejection of a liquid droplet from nozzle outletSearch in Eureka ↗
7 Further: ejection of liquid droplet is one step in Drop-on-Demand 3D printing processSearch in Eureka ↗
8 Adds: mesh generated using FEM and triangular Taylor-Hood elementsSearch in Eureka ↗
9 Adds: angular frequency and damping rate computed using Krylov-Schur projection-based algorithmSearch in Eureka ↗
10 Adds: container is microfluidic device and meniscus is liquid-gas interface in tubeSearch in Eureka ↗
11 Adds: container is nozzle of drop-on-demand printer and meniscus is liquid-gas interface of liquid print materialSearch in Eureka ↗
12 Further: drop-on-demand printer is LMJ, inkjet, binder jetting, PolyJet, or MJF printerSearch in Eureka ↗
13 Apparatus (memory + processing device) for determining damping rate of meniscus unforced oscillations via FEM eigenvalue problemSearch Claim 13 prior art ↗
14 Adds: processing device modifies container shape if above threshold; outputs file if below thresholdSearch in Eureka ↗
15 Adds: container is nozzle and meniscus is liquid-gas interface at nozzle outputSearch in Eureka ↗
16 Adds: mesh generated using FEM and triangular Taylor-Hood elementsSearch in Eureka ↗
17 Adds: Krylov-Schur projection-based algorithm used for angular frequency and damping rate computationSearch in Eureka ↗
18 Adds: container is nozzle of drop-on-demand printer with liquid-gas interface of liquid print materialSearch in Eureka ↗
19 Further: drop-on-demand printer is LMJ, inkjet, binder jetting, PolyJet, or MJF printerSearch in Eureka ↗
20 Non-transitory CRM with instructions for determining damping rate of meniscus unforced oscillations via FEM eigenvalue problemSearch Claim 20 prior art ↗
21 Adds: processing device modifies container shape if above threshold; outputs file if below thresholdSearch in Eureka ↗
22 Adds: container is nozzle and meniscus is liquid-gas interface at nozzle outputSearch in Eureka ↗
23 Adds: mesh generated using FEM and triangular Taylor-Hood elementsSearch in Eureka ↗
24 Adds: Krylov-Schur projection-based algorithm used for angular frequency and damping rate computationSearch in Eureka ↗
25 Adds: container is nozzle of drop-on-demand printer with liquid-gas interface of liquid print materialSearch in Eureka ↗
26 Further: drop-on-demand printer is LMJ, inkjet, binder jetting, PolyJet, or MJF printerSearch in Eureka ↗
27 Method of determining damping rate of meniscus of liquid print material in drop-on-demand nozzle via FEM eigenvalue problemSearch Claim 27 prior art ↗
28 Adds: in response to relaxation time above threshold, modify nozzle shape and recomputeSearch in Eureka ↗
29 Adds: in response to relaxation time below threshold, output file describing nozzle shapeSearch in Eureka ↗
30 Adds: liquid print material is molten metalSearch in Eureka ↗
31 Adds: unforced oscillations result from simulated ejection of a droplet from nozzle outletSearch in Eureka ↗
32 Adds: mesh generated using FEM and triangular Taylor-Hood elementsSearch in Eureka ↗
33 Adds: Krylov-Schur projection-based algorithm used for computationSearch in Eureka ↗
34 Adds: drop-on-demand printer is LMJ, inkjet, binder jetting, PolyJet, or MJF printerSearch in Eureka ↗
| Metric | This Application | Software / Cloud Norm |
|---|---|---|
| Total claims | 34 | 15 – 25 |
| Independent claim count | 4 | 1 – 3 |
| Dependent : Independent ratio | 7.50 : 1 | 4 – 8 : 1 |
| Method claims present? | Yes — Claims 1, 27 | Common |
| System / apparatus claims? | Yes — Claim 13 | Common |
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka. Patent text and figures publicly available from USPTO. Draft a Similar Patent
Drafting Quality
Drafting Quality Signals
The independent claims in this filing demonstrate strong mathematical specificity — the recitation of 'n least-damped late-time oscillation modes' and 'liquid relaxation time by inverting the damping rate' tightly mirrors the disclosed FEM-based eigenvalue methodology — providing solid written description support. However, the near-identical parallel structure of Claims 1–12, 13–19, 20–26, and 27–34 reveals a drafting strategy that prioritises claim-type breadth over substantive fallback differentiation, with many dependent claims adding only application-specific context rather than distinct structural limitations.
✅
Antecedent Basis
The claim set is clean with respect to antecedent basis — each introduced element is consistently referenced with proper "the" articles in subsequent limitations. For example, Claim 1 introduces "a mesh" then references "the mesh" in the eigenvalue problem generation step, and "a mode" is introduced before "the identified mode" in the damping inversion step. No orphaned "the" references were identified across all 34 claims, reducing examiner objection risk on this dimension.
✅
Spec–Claim Consistency
All major claim limitations are supported by specific spec sections and figures. FIG. 3 (steps 302–314) directly maps to the sequential method limitations of Claim 1; FIG. 2B and paragraphs [0036]–[0041] support the mesh generation and eigenvalue formulation limitations; FIG. 7 and paragraphs [0079]–[0083] support the apparatus (Claim 13) and CRM (Claim 20) limitations. The "n least-damped late-time oscillation modes" language is grounded in paragraphs [0048]–[0049], providing robust §112 written description support.
✅
Transition Word Usage
All independent claims use "comprising" as their transition, which is the broadest available choice and appropriate for a mathematical/computational method that may be practiced with additional steps or hardware. The apparatus claim (Claim 13) also uses "comprising" to avoid limiting the system to only the recited memory and processing device. No missed opportunities for open-ended claiming were identified, and the choice of "comprising" is consistently applied across all four independent claims.
✅
§112(f) Means-Plus-Function Risk
No "means for" or "step for" language appears in any of the 34 claims, and functional language such as "configured to" in Claim 13's processing device limitations is paired with structural recitation (memory and processing device) and is a recognized non-MPF form for software-implemented apparatus claims. The detailed description at paragraphs [0079]–[0083] also describes the hardware architecture in sufficient detail to provide structure for the "configured to" language, further reducing §112(f) exposure.
⚠️
§101 Eligibility Risk
Claims 1, 20, and 27 are pure computational method and CRM claims that face meaningful Alice/Mayo exposure — they recite mathematical steps (eigenvalue problem, FEM mesh generation, Krylov-Schur algorithm) applied to a domain (nozzle geometry), which an examiner could characterize as abstract mathematical relationships. The strongest §101 defense lies in the physical tie-in of Claim 27 (specifically reciting a nozzle of a drop-on-demand printer with liquid print material) and the apparatus Claim 13, but Claims 1 and 20 lack mandatory hardware context in their preambles and rely on dependent claims 5/11 and 22/25 for nozzle specificity — a vulnerable structure that a stronger filing would have addressed at the independent claim level.
⚠️
Dependent Claim Fallback Quality
The dependent claim strategy is heavily application-context driven rather than structurally differentiating. Claims 2–3, 14, 21, and 28–29 add meaningful iterative design optimization logic (threshold comparison with shape modification or file output) that creates a distinct fallback position. Claims 8–9, 16–17, 23–24, and 32–33 add the FEM Taylor-Hood element and Krylov-Schur algorithm specifics, which are valuable but highly implementation-specific. However, Claims 10–12, 18–19, 25–26, and 34 merely enumerate printer types (LMJ, inkjet, binder jetting) which provide minimal prosecution fallback value and create redundancy across the four independent claim families.
⚠️
Abstract Quality
An examiner reading the abstract would likely identify the core method steps (mesh generation, eigenvalue problem, damping rate computation, relaxation time inversion) and the meniscus context, which is adequate for search purposes. However, the abstract does not mention the specific FEM discretization approach (Taylor-Hood triangles), the Krylov-Schur solver, or the intended application to drop-on-demand additive manufacturing — the commercially most important application context that differentiates this from prior simulation art. This omission may cause the examiner to search an overly broad prior art space.
✅
Figure Support Quality
Figure coverage is comprehensive for the primary method and system embodiments. FIG. 3 maps directly to every step in the Claim 1 method flow; FIG. 2B provides the domain Ω geometry supporting the mesh generation limitation; FIG. 7 supports the processing device and memory elements of Claim 13; and FIG. 5 supports the lookup table diagnostic use case described in the spec. One gap is the absence of a figure showing the actual FEM mesh with Taylor-Hood triangular elements — a limitation recited in Claims 8, 16, 23, and 32 — which could be raised in examination to challenge written description for that specific dependent claim limitation.
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka. Patent text and figures publicly available from USPTO. Draft a Similar Patent
Scorecard
Strategic Intent Scorecard
Multi-dimensional assessment of this application's patent strategy quality, based on claim structure, specification depth, and prosecution positioning.
Claim Breadth
3.5
Prosecution Defensibility
3.2
Spec–Claim Consistency
4.2
Dependent Claim Coverage
2.8
Claim Type Diversity
4.5
Figure Support Quality
3.8
Key observation: Claim Type Diversity (Score 4.5/5.0) is the strongest dimension — the filing covers method (Claims 1 and 27), apparatus (Claim 13), and CRM (Claim 20) with a targeted nozzle-specific method variant providing four independent enforcement vectors across the same technical core. The weakest dimension is Dependent Claim Coverage (Score 2.8/5.0), caused by the quadruple repetition of nearly identical dependent claims across the four independent families (e.g., Claims 5, 15, 22, 27's preamble, and 25 all recite nozzle/liquid-gas interface context with minor wording variation) — a practitioner reviewing this filing for continuation strategy should consider whether a single broader independent claim with more structurally varied dependents would be more defensible than the current parallel-family architecture.
See how your own draft compares — Open Eureka IP Drafting →
Critical Gaps
3 Critical Gaps in This Claim Set
A senior-attorney lens on the three highest-priority structural weaknesses — what each exposes in prosecution and litigation, and what a stronger filing would have done differently.
🔒
3 Critical Gaps in This Claim Set
See the full attorney-level analysis of what this application leaves unprotected — and how to draft it more defensively for your own filings.
No hardware anchor in method claims Diagnostic lookup table unclaimed Iterative prototype testing loop not claimed
Unlock Full Analysis — Free Frequently asked questions
US 2024/0211655 A1 — key questions answered
Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them from patent data instantly. Search in Eureka
Disclaimer: This analysis is generated by PatSnap Eureka AI based on publicly available patent data from the USPTO. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Patent data may be subject to change as prosecution progresses. Scores and assessments reflect automated analysis and may not capture all relevant legal or technical nuances. Always consult a qualified patent attorney for formal legal opinions on patentability, freedom to operate, or infringement.
Ask anything about this patent.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and data to answer instantly.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard