DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendments filed on Dec. 19th, 2025. A summary of this action:
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-16, 18, 20, 24-25 have been presented for examination.
Claims 8, 10, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-16, 18, 20, 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-16, 18, 20, 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and mental process without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-6, 11-16, 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Najafi et al., "Shape optimization using a NURBS‐based interface‐enriched generalized FEM." International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 111.10 (2017): 927-954, in view of Qi Dang, “FROM MICRO-CT TO A NURBS-BASED INTERFACE-ENRICHED GENERALIZED FINITE ELEMENT METHOD”, Master’s Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, March 28th, 2019 in further view of Xu et al., “High-quality construction of analysis-suitable trivariate NURBS solids by reparameterization methods”, 2014 and in further view of Fonte et al., US 2015/0055086 and in further view of Xu, Shenren, Wolfram Jahn, and Jens‐Dominik Müller (hereinafter Jahn). "CAD‐based shape optimisation with CFD using a discrete adjoint." International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 74.3 (2014): 153-168.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Najafi et al., "Shape optimization using a NURBS‐based interface‐enriched generalized FEM." International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 111.10 (2017): 927-954, in view of Qi Dang, “FROM MICRO-CT TO A NURBS-BASED INTERFACE-ENRICHED GENERALIZED FINITE ELEMENT METHOD”, Master’s Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, March 28th, 2019 in further view of Xu et al., “High-quality construction of analysis-suitable trivariate NURBS solids by reparameterization methods”, 2014 and in further view of Fonte et al., US 2015/0055086 and in further view of Xu, Shenren, Wolfram Jahn, and Jens‐Dominik Müller (hereinafter Jahn). "CAD‐based shape optimisation with CFD using a discrete adjoint." International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 74.3 (2014): 153-168 and in further view of Schumacher, Christian, Jonas Zehnder, and Moritz Bächer. "Set-in-stone: worst-case optimization of structures weak in tension." ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 37.6 (2018): 1-13.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Najafi et al., "Shape optimization using a NURBS‐based interface‐enriched generalized FEM." International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 111.10 (2017): 927-954, in view of Qi Dang, “FROM MICRO-CT TO A NURBS-BASED INTERFACE-ENRICHED GENERALIZED FINITE ELEMENT METHOD”, Master’s Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, March 28th, 2019 in further view of Xu et al., “High-quality construction of analysis-suitable trivariate NURBS solids by reparameterization methods”, 2014 and in further view of Fonte et al., US 2015/0055086 and in further view of Xu, Shenren, Wolfram Jahn, and Jens‐Dominik Müller (hereinafter Jahn). "CAD‐based shape optimisation with CFD using a discrete adjoint." International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 74.3 (2014): 153-168 and in further view of Chen et al., "An asymptotic numerical method for inverse elastic shape design." ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 33.4 (2014): 1-11.
This action is Final
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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Regarding the § 112(b) Rejection
Maintained.
With respect to the remarks, these do not address the rejection itself, e.g. claim 8 recites: “wherein the new mechanical object has an improved strength-to-weight ratio
and an improved mass distribution relative to the mechanical object.” And claim 10 recites: “wherein the new mechanical object has an improved rest shape relative to the mechanical object” but neither claim recites what steps are to be done to achieve these desired result.
To clarify, at most the independent claims recite a step of “optimize” – but it does not recite how it is to optimize to achieve any of these particular desired results, but rather claim any and all methods to use this claimed invention to achieve these desired results.
See Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 75 USPQ2d 1801, (Fed. Cir. 2005) where a claim directed to a software based system for creating a customized computer interface screen [or in this case optimizing a design] recited that the screen be "aesthetically pleasing," [akin to the improved rest shape/improved strength-to-weight ratio/improved mass distribution relative to the mechanical object] which is an intended result and does not provide a clear cut indication of scope because it imposed no structural limits on the screen." (MPEP § 2173.05(g)).
Or, in the case of claims 8 and 10, there is not structural limits placed on the resulting “mechanical object” itself, but rather merely claiming any mechanical object that has this desired result.
To clarify, see the antecedent – in the independent claim 1, this is referring back to “wherein a new mechanical object is manufactured using the mold,” – i.e. this is claiming the product itself resultant from the manufacturing, and claiming that this product is required to have the intended results of claims 8 and 10, but gives no structure as to what this product is nor any structural limitations that would actually achieve this result for any and all products that are a “mechanical object” capable of being “manufactured using the mold”.
MPEP § 2173.05(g): “For example, a claim that included the term "fragile gel" was found to be indefinite because the definition of the term in the specification was functional, i.e., the fluid is defined by what it does rather than what it is ("ability of the fluid to transition quickly from gel to liquid, and the ability of the fluid to suspend drill cuttings at rest"), and it was ambiguous as to the requisite degree of the fragileness of the gel, the ability of the gel to suspend drill cuttings (i.e., gel strength), and/or some combination of the two. Halliburton Energy Servs., 514 F.3d at 1255-56, 85 USPQ2d at 1663. In another example, the claims directed to a tungsten filament for electric incandescent lamps were held invalid for including a limitation that recited "comparatively large grains of such size and contour as to prevent substantial sagging or offsetting during a normal or commercially useful life for such a lamp or other device." General Elec. Co., 304 U.S. at 370-71, 375. The Court observed that the prior art filaments also "consisted of comparatively large crystals" but they were "subject to offsetting" or shifting, and the Court further found that the phrase "of such size and contour as to prevent substantial sagging and offsetting during a normal or commercially useful life for a lamp or other device" did not adequately define the structural characteristics of the grains (e.g., the size and contour) to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Id. at 370. Similarly, a claim was held invalid because it recited "sustantially (sic) pure carbon black in the form of commercially uniform, comparatively small, rounded smooth aggregates having a spongy or porous exterior." United Carbon Co., 317 U.S. at 234. In the latter example, the Court observed various problems with the limitation: "commercially uniform" meant only the degree of uniformity buyers desired; "comparatively small" did not add anything because no standard for comparison was given; and "spongy" and "porous" are synonyms that the Court found unhelpful in distinguishing the claimed invention from the prior art. Id. at 233.”
Regarding the § 112(a) Rejection
Maintained, updated as necessitated by amendment.
With respect to the remarks, see the non-final act. at 16: “The disclosure conveys
only that the optimized model "may be used to design a mold for manufacturing ... " but it does
not specify that particular combination of manufacturing using said model a new optimized
mechanical object.” – these amendments do not address this, i.e. disclosure at page 13 ¶ 3 conveys a mold may be designed that could be used for manufacturing, but it does not positively assert that the object is to be manufactured using the mold.
In other words, while it may have been an obvious variant to have manufactured the product using the model, the specification does not provide sufficient written description support under § 112(a) for this particular combination of features.
See MPEP 2163(I) for Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d
1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2163(II)(A) for Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1371, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376-1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Regarding the § 101 Rejection
Maintained, updated as necessitated by amendment.
With respect to the remarks at prong 1 for the math concept, see the rejection, including the supporting citations to the specification which show that the claims are merely using words instead of mathematical prose to express the math concept. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989).” And MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.”
For the mental process remarks, see which steps were rejected as being mental process steps, i.e. MPEP § 2106.04(I)(A)(2): “See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract");”.
As to the designing of the mold, molds have long been designed mentally, e.g. see Diamond v. Diehr for its mold. The claim merely requires “using the optimized model” but places no limitation on how the model is to be used in a particular technological manner to design the mold. E.g. the person observes an optimized wrench (fig. 2) such as on a print-out of the computer or a display of the computer, and they then mentally evaluate its resulting shape so as to mentally determine a design of a mold to manufacture said wrench.
With respect to the remarks, regarding Desjardins at prong 2, the alleged improvement is not to manufacturing itself, but rather to a mathematical problem with a mathematical solution. See the non-final act. at 19-20 for its discussion of this. MPEP § 2106.05(I): “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” And MPEP § 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.” MPEP § 2106.04(I): “…Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea") (emphasis in original).”
E.g. see page 8, the paragraph prior to the cited paragraph, equation 1 and surrounding description. Page 9, ¶ 2, equation 2 and surrounding description.
With respect to the remarks regarding MPEP § 2106.04(d), these remarks are heavily pointing to the entire claimed invention as being the practical application. However, the question at prong 2 is whether the abstract idea itself is integrated into a practical application by the recitation of elements additional to the abstract idea itself. MPEP § 2106.04(d): “Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 80, 84, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968-69, 1970 (2012) (noting that the Court in Diamond v. Diehr found ‘‘the overall process patent eligible because of the way the additional steps of the process integrated the equation into the process as a whole…” and subsection (I): “The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: • Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); • Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and • Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).” – thus, see the rationale in the rejection and what elements were identified as additional to the abstract idea itself.
With respect to the remarks regarding case law, see the above responses, to summarize: MPEP § 2106.05(I): “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016).”
E.g. page 8, second to last paragraph, and page 9, ¶ 2. What provides these alleged improvements is merely the math itself, i.e. geometrical mathematical calculations of the math operation of projecting using eq. 1 from 2D (the “R2”) to 3D (the “P3”; the “x, y, z” in “projective space”) and imposing the constraints formulated as eq. 2 to provide the “implicit mapping from high-level shape parameters p to the set of m control points … of the NURBS boundary” wherein “During optimizations, these constraints Cpara are enforced, keeping the number and topology of patches fixed.”
To clarify, MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I): “Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality:… vii. Providing historical usage information to users while they are inputting data, in order to improve the quality and organization of information added to a database, because "an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database’s functionality," BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1693-94 (Fed. Cir. 2018); and”
Regarding the § 102/103 Rejection
Withdrawn in view of the amendments, new grounds presented below as was necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8, 10, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claims that they depend upon.
Claim 8 recites, in part: The automated mechanical design analysis system of claim 1, wherein the new mechanical object has an improved strength-to-weight ratio and an improved mass distribution relative to the mechanical object.
Claim 10 recites, in part: The automated mechanical design analysis system of claim 1, wherein the new mechanical object has an improved rest shape relative to the mechanical object.
Claims 18 and 20 contain similar recitations and are rejected under a similar rationale.
These recitations are indefinite as they are unlimited functional limitations that merely describe a desired result “without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim” (MPEP § 2173.05(g)). “See also Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 75 USPQ2d 1801, (Fed. Cir. 2005) where a claim directed to a software based system for creating a customized computer interface screen recited that the screen be "aesthetically pleasing," which is an intended result and does not provide a clear cut indication of scope because it imposed no structural limits on the screen.” (MPEP § 2173.05(g)).
To further clarify, see the instant disclosure, pages 23-24, the paragraph split between the pages, and page 11, last paragraph –at issue is that the present claims are unlimited functional claims, as they merely recite the desired/intended result to be achieved, without placing any limitation on the object to be optimized or what variables are to be optimized.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-16, 18, 20, 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claims they depend upon.
The independent claims, using claim 1 as representative, recite: and design a mold using the optimized model, wherein a new mechanical object is manufactured using the mold.
This is not sufficiently supported. Page 8, last paragraph: “During optimizations, the present approach seeks to ensure that a model remains manufacturable, and changes to shape parameters do not negatively impact its function or characteristic appearance”; page 13, ¶ 3: “It is noted that a significant benefit of the design analysis solution disclosed in the present application is that structural or related objectives are directly minimized on a CAD representation, and the optimized output, i.e., optimized model 160/260, can be loaded into a modeling tool for further refinement, or may be used to design a mold for manufacturing mechanical object 242 it models.”
At issue is that what is not sufficiently supported is and design a mold using the optimized model, wherein a new mechanical object is manufactured using the mold. as recited, for this particular combination is not described sufficiently. To clarify, while it may have been an obvious variant to use the mold for its intended use, obviousness is not the standard for § 112(a) support. The disclosure conveys only that the optimized model “may be used to design a mold for manufacturing…” but it does not specify that particular combination of manufacturing using said model a new optimized mechanical object.
See MPEP 2163(I) for Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
See MPEP 2163(II)(A): "For example, in Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1371, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376-1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the examiner made a prima facie case by clearly and specifically explaining why applicant’s specification did not support the particular claimed combination of elements, even though applicant’s specification listed each and every element in the claimed combination. The court found the "examiner was explicit that while each element may be individually described in the specification, the deficiency was lack of adequate description of their combination" and, thus, "[t]he burden was then properly shifted to [inventor] to cite to the examiner where adequate written description could be found or to make an amendment to address the deficiency.""
See the above § 112(b) rejection for claims 8, 10, 18, and 20 as unlimited functional claims, including the discussion of the instant disclosure on these claims. See MPEP § 2173.05(g): “Unlimited functional claim limitations that extend to all means or methods of resolving a problem may not be adequately supported by the written description or may not be commensurate in scope with the enabling disclosure, both of which are required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1340, 94 USPQ2d at 1167.”
Then see MPEP § 2161.01(I): “…The Federal Circuit has explained that a specification cannot always support expansive claim language and satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 "merely by clearly describing one embodiment of the thing claimed." LizardTech v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1346, 76 USPQ2d 1731, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The issue is whether a person skilled in the art would understand the inventor to have invented, and been in possession of, the invention as broadly claimed. In LizardTech, claims to a generic method of making a seamless discrete wavelet transformation (DWT) were held invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the specification taught only one particular method for making a seamless DWT and there was no evidence that the specification contemplated a more generic method. "[T]he description of one method for creating a seamless DWT does not entitle the inventor . . . to claim any and all means for achieving that objective." LizardTech, 424 F.3d at 1346, 76 USPQ2d at 1733… Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient)…”
As such, in view of the MPEP §§ 2173.05(g) and 2161.01(I), and the above discussed portions of the instant disclosure, claims 8, 10, 18, and 20 lack sufficient written description support.
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 1-6, 8, 10-16, 18, 20, 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and mental process without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim 11 is directed towards the statutory category of a process.
Claim 1 is directed towards the statutory category of an apparatus.
Claims 11, and the dependents thereof, are rejected under a similar rationale as representative claim 1, and the dependents thereof.
Step 2A – Prong 1
The claims recite an abstract idea of both a mental process and mathematical concept.
As an initial matter, the Examiner notes that the instant disclosure describes a mathematical solution to a mathematical problem, i.e. page 1, ¶¶ 1-2: “Nevertheless, and despite the advantages of boundary Io representations for manual design, strength-to-weight or rest shape optimization require the solution of a Partial Differential Equation (PDE) on the volume enclosed by the representative boundary. Although progress has been made in isogeometric analysis, where PDEs are solved on volumetric NURBS representations, the generation of volumetric NURBS for general boundary representation input continues to present challenges in the conventional art. As a result, it is still typical to solve PDEs on a volumetric mesh representation. However, because shape optimization requires a differentiable simulator, and even moderate changes to design variables demand repeated conversion and remeshing, the use of CAD in combination with design optimization remains unfortunately limited in the conventional art.” – i.e. this discovery addresses a problem in mathematics.
To further clarify, page 13, ¶¶ 2-3: “Thus, to enable shape optimization on CAD, the present novel and inventive solution introduces [i.e. provides]: 5 (1) a continuous projection of shape parameters onto the constraint manifold spanned by the user-specified parameterization [a math concept in the mathematical field of geometry], guaranteeing that the problem is well posed, and (2) a technique to efficiently compute derivatives of our hierarchical quadrature rules [a math concept of better mathematical calculations in the mathematical fields of calculus and/or numerical analysis techniques].”
As a further clarifying point on the BRI of the term “projection”, the Examiner notes that when used in its ordinary manner, as it is in this disclosure, it is a mapping (page 8 of the disclosure) from what set of coordinates to another. E.g. the well-known Mercator projection of the 3D globe to 2D maps in cartography, well before the advent of computers. The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. "Mercator projection". Encyclopedia Britannica, 14 Aug. 2025, www(dot)britannica(dot)com/science/Mercator-projection(dot) Accessed 26 August 2025. The Examiner is noting this in view of MPEP § 1204.04: “See, e.g., Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304, 307 (1893) (citations omitted) (admitting dictionaries to understand the ordinary meaning of terms "not as evidence, but only as aids to the memory and understanding of the court");”
See MPEP § 2106.04: “...In other claims, multiple abstract ideas, which may fall in the same or different groupings, or multiple laws of nature may be recited. In these cases, examiners should not parse the claim. For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.”
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility.
The mathematical concept recited in claim 1 is:
perform a parametric mapping of the input model based on the at least one design parameter to produce a parameterized model corresponding to the input model; - mathematical calculations/relationships in textual form. See page 8, ¶ 2 including: “…As a result, a NURBS patch with control points Qi,j E [1»3 and polynomial basis functions Bi,j: IR{2 ➔ IR{ may be considered to be a parametric mapping:” and see the equation. And page 19, last paragraph: “For accurate integration along curves C in Figure 5B the curves are parameterized with a mapping from t E [ a, b] to spatial curve points r(t),” – i.e. the parametric mapping is mapping coordinates from one domain (e.g. “u,v”) to another domain (e.g. “projective coordinates”, e.g. “x, y, z”), such as discussed on page 8 ¶ 2, by the use of mathematical relationships/equations. This is a mathematical concept in the mathematical field of “geometry”, including its various and numerous subfields (page 9, last paragraph; page 18 ¶ 2; page 1, ¶ 2: “isogeometric analysis”).
embed the parameterized model in a grid to produce a plurality of model- grid intersections defining a plurality of subvolumes of the parameterized model, wherein the grid is independent of a boundary of the parameterized model - mathematical calculations/relationships/equations in the field of geometry, i.e. this is taking a geometric CAD model (Page 8, ¶ 2: “Referring to parameterization stage 252 of process flow 200, a general form of a CAD model may be described as a closed Non-Uniform Rational Basis Spline (NURBS) object, i.e., a set of NURBS patches that form a c0 surface [a mathematical technique in geometry to describe the geometry of an object using mathematical functions/relationships of “Non-Uniform Rational Basis Spline”]; page 1, ¶ 1: “In modern Computer-Aided Design (CAD) systems, a boundary representation 5 composed primarily of Non-Uniform Rational Basis Spline (NURBS) patches is typically used to describe solid models [describe the geometry of solid models]… require the solution of a Partial Differential Equation (PDE) on the volume enclosed by the representative boundary”), establishing new mathematical relationships which is the “parameterized model” as discussed above (i.e. mapping the mathematical representation of the geometry of an object from one set of coordinates to another set by math equations/relationships), and then embedding this mathematical representation of the geometry (the “parameterized model”) “in a grid”, wherein this grid has a plurality of “model-grid intersections defining a plurality of subvolumes…” (math relationships/calculations in geometry of finding the intersections between the grid and the model to define subvolumes), wherein this grid is independent of a boundary of the parameterized model (an exclusion of a math relationship between the geometry of the grid and the geometry of a boundary of the parameterized model), wherein the subvolume elements are cut into arbitrarily complex subvolumes (i.e. geometrical mathematical operations of dividing a volume into smaller volumes, e.g. dividing a cube into a set of smaller cubes)
To clarify on the BRI, see the above citations, then see page 19, last paragraph: “Intersections of NURBS patches with hexahedral elements form planar curves that 20 are embedded in planes parallel to one of the coordinate planes…” and page 9, last paragraph: “To mitigate this problem, the present solution includes grid embedding stage 254 prior to simulation, in which the CAD model is embedded in a simulation grid, such as a 20 three-dimensional (3D) regular hexahedral grid for example.”, and page 10, ¶ 2: “However, in contrast to standard FEM, the volume V enclosed in the CAD model is the intersection of the boundary representation of the model with the grid into which the model was embedded IO in grid embedding stage 254, and elements on the boundary are cut into arbitrarily complex subvolumes.” Also see fig. 5B, as discussed on page 16: “Figure 5B depicts an exemplary subvolume 548 of parameterized model 444, according to one implementation, which is discussed in greater detail below by reference to action 375”; page 12 last paragraph: “…parameterized volume enclosed by the CAD model…”, page 16, ¶¶ 2-4: “…Adjacent patches in CAD models often meet tangentially along edges, for example when fillets are used to remove sharp features…. The present design analysis solution enables user 132 to utilize user device 130 to 20 define a shape parameter on the surface of input model 140/240/440, e.g., the radius r2 of cylinder C2 . A list of patches that are connected to the selected parameter via the constraint graph may then be presented to user 132.” Page 26, ¶ 3: “Curve Rules: As noted above, it is in general not possible to extract an analytical parameterization for intersection curves that arise when several NURBS patches intersect 15 within a grid element, or a NURBS intersects with one of the element planes. Consequently, we represent these planar or spatial curves with sample points, and distinguish between several example cases shown by Figure 6 and discussed below.” – then on page 27, see the description of figure 6: “To this end, it is best to look at a specific examples 680 and 688 in Figure 6, where three "surfaces" intersect in a single point: if p is changed, the control points of the three patches and also the uv-coordinates in their respective parameter domain, change What uniquely defines the uv-coordinates is the constraint that they all map to the same point in 3D, formalized with an equation…for every pair…”
generate a simulation of the input model based on the plurality of model- grid intersections and the plurality of subvolumes, wherein the simulation of the input model is used to optimize one or more physical characteristics of the mechanical object;. – math calculations/relationships/equations in textual form
To clarify, Page 9, ¶ 3: “To achieve this goal, the simulation generated in subsequent
simulation stage 256 must be sufficiently smooth and differentiable”, Page 10, ¶ 1 including equation 3 and “Referring to simulation stage 256 of process flow 200, in order to determine the elastic response x E ~ 3n of a CAD model… where the material-dependent strain energy density, '-11, is integrated over points x E JR3 in the undeformed volume V.”, then see page 10, ¶ 3: “In order to loosen the coupling between grid resolution and simulation precision, the present approach represents cuts in elements explicitly with an enrichment and implements a quadrature scheme that integrates quantities such as the elastic energy Eint over complex subvolumes reliably and accurately.”, page 18, ¶ 3: “where the simulation of input model 140/240/ 440 provides a differentiable mathematical representation of input model 140/240/440 (action 375).” Page 18, last paragraph: ‘To simulate a complex CAD model on a simulation grid that is not conformal, quadrature rules are required for integration of functions [math calculations of integration of mathematical functions] over (1) subvolumes, which are part of the model interior (e.g., to accumulate elastic force density), and over (2) regions on the model surface (e.g., to aggregate surface traction).” Also see page 11, ¶ 2, which describes equation 4, and see page 12 for its equations and their accompanying descriptions including: “To support the co-optimization of such combined objectives, the present solution introduces a second type of objective that integrates standard functions over the volume defined by the boundary representation:… For example, integration of the density p(X) (times the constant 1) yields the mass of a CAD model, and can be combined with the objective described by Equation 4 above to formulate strength-to-weight ratio optimizations… The optimization performed during optimization stage 258 of process flow 200 seeks to minimize one of the objectives described by Equations 4, 5, or 6, or a weighted combination of those objectives over the parameterized volume enclosed by the CAD model”
Also see page 18, last paragraph: “To simulate a complex CAD model on a simulation grid that is not conformal, quadrature rules are required for integration of functions over (1) subvolumes…” and page 20 ¶ 3 including: “To integrate over planar areas and surfaces, a first nesting of the hierarchical integration scheme described in the present application is employed. There are two cases to consider: (1) integrals over planar areas that lie in grid planes of the simulation grid, and (2) integrals over curved surfaces, represented by NURBS patches” – see pages 20-23 for more clarification on this, and page 28, last paragraph: “The optimization techniques described above enable a wide variety of applications, ranging from combined mass distribution and strength-to-weight ratio, or rest shape optimization, to various other inverse design problems that require an accurate integration of properties or discretized PDEs over a parameterized design domain enclosed by a boundary 20 representation.”
optimize, using the simulation of the input model, the at least one design parameter for the input model to generate an optimized model corresponding to the input model; – which is mathematical calculations/equations/relationships in textual form, with a desired result specified. See the above citations, also see page 24, ¶ 2 including equation 19 to page 25 ¶ 1 including equations 20-21, also see pages 11-12 including : “The optimization performed during optimization stage 258 of process flow 200 seeks to minimize one of the objectives described by Equations 4, 5, or 6, or a weighted combination of those objectives over the parameterized volume enclosed by the CAD model”
To clarify, this does not require that it is manufactured, rather only that the desired result of the math calculations in textual form is a design of an object (i.e. the mathematical relationships/equations representing the geometry of the object; see the instant disclosure page 8-9 the paragraph split between the pages; page 9 ¶ 3 at lines 9-12; page 11 last paragraph, etc.) that is able to be manufactured (MPEP § 2111.04(I)). Also, note the antecedent basis back to “a differentiable mathematical representation of the input model used to optimize one or more physical characteristics of the mechanical object;” – i.e. the wherein clause here is merely adding in that, using the mathematical relationships/equations of a “differentiable mathematical representation” [broadly claiming any math equation/relationship that is able to have its derivative taken], this does math calculations so as to result in having optimized physical characteristics, which when read in view of the disclosure is merely using math calculations to determine the shape/geometry of an object
wherein the optimizing is performed subject to enforcement of a predetermined constraint implicitly mapping one or more shape parameters to a set of control points of the boundary of the parameterized model that keeps a number and topology of patches included in the boundary of the parameterized model fixed;- part of the math calculations/equations/relationships in textual form. See page 9, ¶ 2 for equation 2 and its accompanying description, i.e. “During optimizations, these constraints Cpara [“Equation 2”] are enforced, keeping the number and topology of patches fixed.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a mathematical concept – the above limitations are steps in a mathematical concept such as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed towards a mathematical concept, then it falls within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, as per MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2): “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)”
See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility.
The mental process recited in claim 1 is:
identify at least one design parameter of the input model for automated analysis; - a mental observation/judgement, but for the mere instructions to do it on a computer/apply the abstract idea on a computer. See the instant disclosure, page 15: “Design parameter(s) for input model 140/240/440 may be provided as inputs to user device 130 by user 132 and may be received by system 100 via communication network 120 and network communication links 122” – e.g. a user, observing a shape to be optimized/designed, e.g. of a wheel, either with their own eyes (such as of a prototype, or drawings of an initial design) or by mentally visualizing the shape in their own mind, then making a mental judgement of which design parameters should be optimized, e.g. judging where the center of mass should be, and where the major axis of the moment of inertia should be. Page 11, last paragraph: “For example, 20 to optimize the strength-to-weight ratio of an asymmetric wheel design, the center of mass must lie on the axis of the wheel, and the major axis of the moment of inertia must align with this axis.” As another example, they could identify the circumference of a wheel as the design parameter by a mental judgement.
and design a mold using the optimized model - a mental process, but for the mere instructions to use a computer as a tool to do it (instant disclosure, page 13, ¶ 2 at lines 10-14). To clarify, this is reciting at a high level of generality (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) for Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) designing a mold based on a model of an object.
Such a mental process does not even require a computer. For example, an engineer is readily able to make a model of an object by mentally visualizing the object to be manufactured, and with the aid of pen and paper, and other physical aids, e.g. rulers, readily produce a mold (or a design for a mold) for the object.
E.g. blacksmiths and other metal working professionals have long used (and thus must have designed) molds to make various objects, e.g. swords, keys, artwork, etc., well before the invention of a computer.
E.g. See Bloomfield et al, “Sand Casting”, Lecture notes from Santa Rosa Junior College, Fall 2013, ENGR 45, URL: srjcstaff(dot)santarosa(dot)edu/~yataiiya/E45/PROJECTS/Sand%20Casting%20Semester%20Presentation(dot)pdf , for “A Brief History of Casting” and its “Definition” on slides 2-7, including that casting has been performed by people for thousands of years.
E.g. by the time of Diamond v. Diehr (MPEP § 2106.05(e)) rubber molding for manufacturing was a conventional process, wherein Diamond v. Diehr provided an improvement to said process. To clarify, in Diamond v. Diehr it was “a physical and chemical process for molding precision synthetic rubber products” (see the opinion) wherein the opinion clarifies: “In the first sentence of its opinion, the Court states the question presented as "whether a process for curing synthetic rubber . . . is patentable subject matter." Ante, at 177. Of course, that question was effectively answered many years ago when Charles Goodyear obtained his patent on the vulcanization process. 25” and footnote 25 clarifies it was “In an opinion written over a century ago”
E.g. Waite et al., US 7,024,342, col. 1, ln. 20-55 incl: “In manufacturing casting/molding processes, for product quality of the molded article, it is of importance to optimize the mold design and the process conditions. Conventionally, such optimization is attained after many trial and error experiments which are repeated on the basis of the rule of thumb of an expert [a person]. With the advance in computer technology, it has become possible to analyze flow behavior of a material during a casting/molding process by computer simulation. When realistically modeled, the results from 30 such simulation may be used to predict the casting behavior, thereby improving the efficiency of product and mold design, and optimization of processing conditions [by a person using a computer as a tool]…”
optimize, using the simulation of the input model, the at least one design parameter for the input model to generate an optimized model corresponding to the input model – this is recited with enough generality for a person to perform such a step, e.g. using a computer as a tool to perform the math calculations of the simulation, and then the user mentally evaluating the results of the simulation such as on the display of the computer, mentally judging to adjust a design parameter so as to optimize the model, and using the computer a second time as a tool to verify that it was optimized with the adjusted parameter, such as in a trial-and-error process to optimize a design.
In addition, the Examiner notes that the differentiable mathematical representation (instant disclosure page 23, ¶ 3) is not claimed with any particularity as to what the equations are in the representation, as such a person would readily be able to use a differentiable mathematical representation in an optimization with other physical aids such as a pencil, paper, and a calculator, for a simple mathematical differentiable representation, e.g. y=mx^2.
To be clear, but for the recitation of “the input model”, and the preamble requiring the use of a computer, this feature does not even require a computer, rather it simply requires a simple differentiable equation to be used in a mental trial-and-error process to make a better design of an object.
…[predetermining] a constraint implicitly mapping shape parameters of the parameterized model to a set of control points of the boundary of the parameterized model; - a mental process, but done on a computer – page 9, ¶ 2, note that the “user 132 may be permitted to define, a priori, an implicit mapping…” – i.e. the user (a person) manually defines this mapping explicitly in the disclosure.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of physical aids but for the recitation of a generic computer component. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. A person would readily be able to perform this process either mentally or with the assistance of physical aids. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility. In particular, with respect to the physical aids, see example # 45, analysis of claim 1 under step 2A prong 1, including: “Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation.”; also see example # 49, analysis of claim 1, under step 2A prong 1: “Moreover, the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind. Even if most humans would use a physical aid, like a pen and paper or a calculator, to make such calculations, the use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation.”
As such, the claims recite an abstract idea of both a mental process and mathematical concept.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
The following limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”:
An automated mechanical design analysis system for manufacturing a mechanical object, the system comprising: a computing platform including a hardware processor and a system memory; and a software code stored in the system memory, wherein the hardware processor is configured to execute the software code to:
Representative claim 1 (and parallel claim 11 for a similar limitation): wherein a new mechanical object is manufactured using the mold. – mere instructions to “apply it”, akin to the cutting of hair with scissors of In re Brown in MPEP 2106.05(f)
Should it be found that the design of the mold is not part of the abstract idea, then it would also be mere instruction to “apply it” under a similar rationale.
In addition, claim 11 does not even recite the use of a computer. See MPEP § 2111 for its discussion of In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).
The following limitations are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h):
wherein a new mechanical object is manufactured using the mold. -generally linking to a field of use/technological environment of making a mold for manufacturing, e.g. the field of Diamond v. Diehr as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e), rather than other fields/technological environments such as “asymmetric wheel design” (page 11, last paragraph; a field discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h): “iii. Limiting the use of the formula C = 2 (pi) r to determining the circumference of a wheel as opposed to other circular objects, because this limitation represents a mere token acquiescence to limiting the reach of the claim, Flook, 437 U.S. at 595, 198 USPQ at 199;”), wherein the instant disclosure further clarifies on this on page 28, last paragraph: “The optimization techniques described above enable a wide variety of applications”, i.e. other fields of use/technological environments; also see page 13, ¶ 3: “optimized model 160/260, can be loaded into a modeling tool for further refinement, or may be used to design a mold for manufacturing mechanical object 242 it models.”
Should it be found that the design of the mold is not part of the abstract idea, then it would also be generally linking to a particular field of use under a similar rationale.
The following limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g):
receive an input model of a mechanical object; - mere data gathering
wherein a new mechanical object is manufactured using the mold. - an insignificant extra-solution activity of an insignificant application, akin to “i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); and ii. Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55.” As discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g)
Should it be found that the design of the mold is not part of the abstract idea, then it would also be an insignificant token post-solution activity under a similar rationale.
A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
Step 2B
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements/limitations that amount to significantly more.
The following limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”:
An automated mechanical design analysis system for manufacturing a mechanical object, the system comprising: a computing platform including a hardware processor and a system memory; and a software code stored in the system memory, wherein the hardware processor is configured to execute the software code to:
Representative claim 1 (and parallel claim 11 for a similar limitation): wherein a new mechanical object is manufactured using the mold. – mere instructions to “apply it”, akin to the cutting of hair with scissors of In re Brown in MPEP 2106.05(f)
Should it be found that the design of the mold is not part of the abstract idea, then it would also be mere instruction to “apply it” under a similar rationale.
In addition, claim 11 does not even recite the use of a computer. See MPEP § 2111 for its discussion of In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).
The following limitations are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h):
wherein a new mechanical object is manufactured using the mold. -generally linking to a field of use/technological environment of making a mold for manufacturing, e.g. the field of Diamond v. Diehr as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e), rather than other fields/technological environments such as “asymmetric wheel design” (page 11, last paragraph; a field discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h): “iii. Limiting the use of the formula C = 2 (pi) r to determining the circumference of a wheel as opposed to other circular objects, because this limitation represents a mere token acquiescence to limiting the reach of the claim, Flook, 437 U.S. at 595, 198 USPQ at 199;”), wherein the instant disclosure further clarifies on this on page 28, last paragraph: “The optimization techniques described above enable a wide variety of applications”, i.e. other fields of use/technological environments; also see page 13, ¶ 3: “optimized model 160/260, can be loaded into a modeling tool for further refinement, or may be used to design a mold for manufacturing mechanical object 242 it models.”
Should it be found that the design of the mold is not part of the abstract idea, then it would also be generally linking to a particular field of use under a similar rationale.
The following limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g):
receive an input model of a mechanical object; - mere data gathering
wherein a new mechanical object is manufactured using the mold. - an insignificant extra-solution activity of an insignificant application, akin to “i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); and ii. Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55.” As discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g)
Should it be found that the design of the mold is not part of the abstract idea, then it would also be an insignificant token post-solution activity under a similar rationale.
The following limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g):
receive an input model of a mechanical object; - mere data gathering
and manufacturing, using the mold, a new mechanical object being an optimized version of the mechanical object having the one or more optimized physical characteristics - an insignificant extra-solution activity of an insignificant application, akin to “i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); and ii. Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55.” As discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g)
Should it be found that the design of the mold is not part of the abstract idea, then it would also be an insignificant token post-solution activity under a similar rationale.
In addition, the above insignificant extra-solution activities are also considered as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d):
receive an input model of a mechanical object; - this is considered similar to the example WURC activity as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) of: “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;” For additional evidence, see the instant disclosure, page 1, ¶¶ 1-2; also see:
Yuan et al., “Mapped B-spline basis functions for shape design and isogeometric analysis over an arbitrary parameterization”, 2013, abstract and § 1 including: “B-spline curves and surfaces are widely used in the CAD and graphics communities. Their rational representation, known as Non-Uniform Rational B-splines (NURBS), has been the de facto industrial standard over the past decades. B-splines provide a convenient set of basis functions for a control mesh of regular topology. They have been widely used in shape design, surface reconstruction, shape deformation and animation, image processing, biomedical applications, and recently on isogeometric analysis (IGA) [6,14,18,26,28]… IGA based on B-splines has been widely discussed…”, and § 2 provides the mathematical definition of a “B-spline curve…”
wherein a new mechanical object is manufactured using the mold. and also, should it be found that the designing of the mold is not part of the abstract idea, these are considered WURC in view of Knights et al., “CAD Evolution For 3D Mold Design”, March 1st, 2008, Plastics Technology, News Article, URL: www(dot)ptonline(dot)com/articles/cad-evolution-for-3d-mold-design, see : “Specially tailored packages of 3D computer-aided design software have been available to injection mold designers for at least a decade…Today’s typical mold-design CAD package features programs or modules to build and view a full representation of the mold, which includes generating core and cavity from the part model, parting-line splits, optimization of parting surfaces, mold-base selection, and addition of shutoffs, cooling lines, runner systems, gates, slides, lifters, ejectors, columns, spacers, guides, nozzles, screws, and pins…Suppliers say such productivity advancements are critical to moldmakers today. “Injection molding part designs are becoming more complex due to parts consolidation, while at the same time the molder or customer requires the tooling sooner, so the mold has to be created and fabricated more quickly…”, also see Hafner et al., “X-CAD: Optimizing CAD Models with Extended Finite Elements”, 2019, an article on the instant invention by the instant inventors, page 2, col. 1, ¶ 3: “CAD models are often tailored for fabrication using a particular manufacturing technology. For example, if we target casting or injection molding, a model has to be undercut-free and observe a minimal draft angle constraint”; and see page 4, col. 1, ¶ 2: “or to design the mold for manufacturing by casting or modeling”, then see page 14, col. 1, ¶ 1: “To manufacture the optimized lampshade, we use MoldStar 30 rubber”
Also see Diamond v. Diehr as discussed briefly above; and Bloomfield et al, “Sand Casting”, Lecture notes from Santa Rosa Junior College, Fall 2013, ENGR 45 as discussed above
The claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and a mental process without significantly more.
Regarding the dependent claims
Claims 2-4 are merely further limiting the mere data gathering in the manner discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h): “a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation”, wherein these are considered WURC in view of ¶ 3 of the instant disclosure: “In modern Computer-Aided Design (CAD) systems, a boundary representation 5 composed primarily of Non-Uniform Rational Basis Spline (NURBS) patches is typically used to describe solid models”, also see Borrmann, A.; König, M.; Koch, C.; Beetz, J. (Eds): Building Information Modeling - Technology Foundations and Industry Practice, Springer, 2018, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-92862-3, § 2.2.1.1: “Boundary Representation is the most common and widespread method for describing three-dimensional bodies using a computer. The basic principle involves defining a hierarchy of boundary elements. Typically, this hierarchy comprises the elements Body, Face, Edge and Vertex. Each element is described by elements from the level beneath, i.e. the body is described by its faces, each face by its edges, each edge by a start and end vertex. This system of relationships defines the topology of the modeled body, and can be described with the help of a graph (see Fig. 1.2), which is known as the vertex-edge-face graph, or … graph…”, also see § 2.4.1 including: “Freeform curves are also known as splines. These are curves that are comprised of a series of polynomials. To ensure the overall curve is smooth, the joins between the segments of the curve must satisfy given continuity conditions. There are three different stages of continuity which are termed C0-, C1- and C2 continuity (see Fig. 1.10). C0 continuity stands for point continuity and means that two curves are connected without a break between them… Freeform curves are described mathematically as parametric curves. The term “parametric” derives from the fact that the three coordinates in space are the function of common parameters (commonly termed u)… The most common types of freeform curves are Bezier curves, B-splines and NURBS. All three types are defined by a series of control points: the first and last of these lie on the curve, while those in-between are only approximated by the curve…Mathematically all three curve types are the sum of the multiplication of the control points with the basis function. These basis functions are different for each of the three curve type…” – then see page 13 for the description of “NURBS”; also see Hartmann et al., “About Isogeometric Analysis and the new NURBS-based Finite Elements in LS-DYNA”, 2011, § 2.2 including § 2.2.1-2.2.2; then see § 2.24, then see § 3.1 which describes “A typical NURBS-patch”.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under a similar rationale
For additional WURC evidence, also see previously cited Suresh et al., US 2018/ 0225871, ¶¶ 3-5; also see Cho, Maenghyo, Jinbok Choi, and Hee-Yuel Roh. "Integration of shell FEA with geometric modeling on NURBS surface representation for practical applications." 47th AIA A/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference 14th AIA A/ASME/AHS Adaptive Structures Conference 7th. 2008. §§ 1-2, and page 31; and Hughes, Thomas JR, John A. Cottrell, and Yuri Bazilevs. "Isogeometric analysis: CAD, finite elements, NURBS, exact geometry and mesh refinement." Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering 194.39-41 (2005): 4135-4195. § 1 including pages 4138-4139, then see § 2 including the subsections, then see § 2.6 including page 4145, and § 5.2
Claim 5 is further limiting the mathematical concept by specifying the geometry to be “3D” of the grid, and by specifying that the geometry of the grid “remains constant”, e.g. a 3D cuboidal grid comprising equally sized cubes – i.e. this would be the mathematical relationships/equations in the field geometry representing the grid for use in the math calculations in textual form (e.g. the mathematical geometrical relationships between such cubes defining the grid)
Claim 15 is rejected under a similar rationale
Claim 6 is further limiting the math concept to use a “regular hexahedral grid”, e.g. a grid of cuboidal shapes as cuboids has 6 sides in their geometry, such as a 3D grid of cubes
To clarify on the BRI of regular, while the instant disclosure does not define what the term “regular” means, the Examiner notes that POSITA would have known the meaning of this claim term by their own knowledge as this term, in this context, is a common term of art, e.g. see Yildirim et al., “PARAMETERS CORRELATION STUDY TO INVESTIGATE THE EFFECTS OF GEOMETRIC VARIABLES ON THE SAFETY OF BOLTED FLANGE CONNECTIONS”, page 2 ¶ 2: “A regular hexahedral element, also known as brick element, is presented in both Figure 3 with linear formulation and in Figure 4 with quadratic formulation” and see figures 3-4 which show this is a cube (e.g. instant figures 5B and 6)
To clarify, this point in view of Yildirim is being made in view of MPEP § 2111.01(I and III) for Phillips v. AWH, for whether a recitation is definite under § 112(b) is not in a vacuum, but rather whether POSITA would have found it to be definite, and in this particular case “regular” has a special plain meaning when interpreted by POSITA rendering it definite, e.g. see Yildirim’s usage of this and visual depictions to clarify on how POSITA would read this limitation.
Claim 16 is rejected under a similar rationale
Claims 8 and 10 are considered as further limiting the math concept of the optimization by specifying what variables are to be optimized, wherein to clarify on the optimization being a math concept of math equations, relationships, and/or calculations, see the instant disclosure as was discussed above for the optimizing in the independent claims, including page 24, ¶ 2 including equation 19 to page 25 ¶ 1 including equations 20-21, also see pages 11-12 including : “The optimization performed during optimization stage 258 of process flow 200 seeks to minimize one of the objectives described by Equations 4, 5, or 6, or a weighted combination of those objectives over the parameterized volume enclosed by the CAD model”. Should this be found not to be part of the abstract idea, then the Examiner submits that this would be generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use/technological environment, akin to “vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);” as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h), as this is merely specifying what variable is to be optimized by fully functional, results-oriented, recitations of what is to be improved
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under a similar rationale
Claims 24-25 is merely further clarifying the math concept of the optimizing. See instant disclosure eq. 4-7 to clarify, i.e. the objectives are merely math equations in textual form, and the terms of them are merely variables in the math equations (note in the equations “p” which is the variable for the shape parameters, as per page 9 ¶ 2: “shape parameters p”).
The claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and a mental process without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6, 11-16, 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Najafi et al., "Shape optimization using a NURBS‐based interface‐enriched generalized FEM." International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 111.10 (2017): 927-954, in view of Qi Dang, “FROM MICRO-CT TO A NURBS-BASED INTERFACE-ENRICHED GENERALIZED FINITE ELEMENT METHOD”, Master’s Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, March 28th, 2019 in further view of Xu et al., “High-quality construction of analysis-suitable trivariate NURBS solids by reparameterization methods”, 2014 and in further view of Fonte et al., US 2015/0055086 and in further view of Xu, Shenren, Wolfram Jahn, and Jens‐Dominik Müller (hereinafter Jahn). "CAD‐based shape optimisation with CFD using a discrete adjoint." International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 74.3 (2014): 153-168.
Regarding Claim 1
Najafi teaches:
An automated mechanical design analysis system for manufacturing a mechanical object, the system comprising: a computing platform including a hardware processor and a system memory; and a software code stored in the system memory, wherein the hardware processor is configured to execute the software code to: receive an input model of a mechanical object; (Najafi, see fig. 5 as discussed in § 4 including: “The flowchart for the gradient-based NIGFEM shape optimization algorithm is given in Figure 5. The algorithm can be summarized as follows: Read all the input data to define the boundary value problem, the mesh, and all the geometrical data including an initial guess for the design variable”, wherein a skilled person would have inferred, or at least found it obvious, that a computer with a processor and memory was used because this was an “shape optimization algorithm” – see § 1 ¶ 1 to clarify
To clarify on the mechanical object, see § 5 including: “We apply the NIGFEM shape optimization scheme to several 2D structural optimization problems including some benchmark examples suggested in [7].”, e.g. see figure 13 for “(a) Cantilever beam problem description and (b) compliance and volume fraction constraint convergence history. The design evolution is illustrated for selected iterations.”
To clarify on the input model, see Najafi, abstract: “…In the proposed method, non-uniform rational B-splines are used to parameterize the design geometry precisely and compactly by a small number of design variables….” And to clarify see § 1, ¶ 1: “The goal of structural shape optimization is to find the optimal shape of a structure to minimize (or maximize) an objective function and satisfy constraint inequalities that describe the structural response. Typically, shape optimization methods are composed of a design model, an analysis model, and an optimization algorithm [1]. The design model contains a parameterized geometrical description of the design domain, usually based on a computer aided design (CAD) model, while the analysis model employs numerical methods such as the finite element method (FEM) to compute the structural response using a FEM mesh, which approximates the CAD description of the design domain.” And § 1 ¶ 2: “In the parametrization approaches, the shape of the structure (design model) is parameterized using a set of geometric design variables” – to further clarify see fig. 5 as discussed above, including its description in § 4 – i.e. the input model is a parameterized NURBS model
To further clarify, § 2.1: “NURBS are built from B-splines basis functions, which are defined over a parametric space, with a set of so-called knot vectors [27, 62, 63]. A knot vector for the 1D curve is a set of non-decreasing real numbers,…, representing coordinates (knots) in the parametric space… Using B-spline basis functions, NURBS curves …are defined as… are the control point coordinate vectors in our assumed 2D physical space…”)
identify at least one design parameter of the input model for automated analysis; (Najafi, see fig. 5 as discussed in § 4 including: “The flowchart for the gradient-based NIGFEM shape optimization algorithm is given in Figure 5. The algorithm can be summarized as follows: Read all the input data to define the boundary value problem, the mesh, and all the geometrical data including an initial guess for the design variable d=d0”
e.g. in § 5, ¶ 1: “The hole boundary is represented with a NURBS; the control point coordinates serve as the design variables. In this example, there are 12 design variables: the control points marked by blue squares (triangles) in Figure 6(c–e) can only move in the x (y) directions, while all others (marked by red circles) are free to move vertically and horizontally” and § 6.3 in reference to fig. 13(a): “The design variables are the coordinates of eight control points per hole. In this fixed topology design problem, we prevent the inclusions from overlapping by imposing distance constraints such that Cij ⩾ 0.03L.”)
embed the parameterized model in a grid to produce a plurality of model- grid intersections defining a plurality of [subsurfaces] of the parameterized model, wherein the grid is independent of a boundary of the parameterized model; (Najafi, as was cited above including the abstract, then see fig. 2: “Schematic of a domain discretized with standard bilinear quadrilateral elements and a material interface with complex geometry represented by a non-uniform rational B-splines (NURBS) curve (Left). Construction of NURBS patches for the element subdomains Ω(1) e and Ω(2) e (Right).” As discussed in § 2.2 including on page 8, ¶ 2: “Adopting a non-conforming mesh in NIGFEM, we discretize the domain … with a fixed mesh that conforms to the fixed boundary but not to the interfaces [independent of the boundary/interfaces of the model] …” and page 10: “To generate enrichment functions for each element Ωe that is subdivided by the interface, we need to construct 2D NURBS patches on the element subdomains Ω(1) e and Ω(2) e , as shown in Figure 2(b).” – to clarify, see fig. 5, including its description in § 4 on page 27 including: “2. Implement the NIGFEM: (a) Find intersection points as described in Section 2.2 (b) Update material interface NURBS curve via knot insertion to define a subsection of the curve that belongs to each intersecting element: (cf. (13) and (14) and following discussion) (c) Construct enriched element and associated enrichment functions to capture field discontinuity over material interfaces (cf. (15))” – see § 2.2 and figures 13-15 for additional clarification
to clarify, as visually depicted in fig. 2 the parameterized model is the “NURBS interface” (Najafi, abstract), which is embedded into the mesh/model grid, producing a plurality of “Intersection points” (fig 2, left), wherein these points define 2D subsurfaces of the parametrized model (fig. 2(right))
and generate a simulation of the input model based on the plurality of model- grid intersections and the plurality of [subsurfaces]; wherein the simulation is used to optimize one or more physical characteristics of the mechanical object. (Najafi, § 4 on pages 27-28 including: “4. Compute objective and constraint functions g and hi 5. Perform sensitivity analysis to compute derivative of objective and constraint functions with respect to design variables di (a) Compute design velocity field Vi. Evaluate velocity of knots and enriched control points belonging to material interface NURBS curve via (57), (58), (61), and (63). ii. Evaluate velocity field and its special gradient for each integration point via (46)-(48) (b) Compute pseudo-load vector via (42) i. Compute derivative of global stiffness matrix via (43) ii. Compute derivative of global load vector via (44) (c) Evaluate sensitivities…” – and see accompanying fig. 5 including its caption: “Flowchart of a gradient-based shape optimization using NIGFEM. The solid (dashed) arrow lines in the sensitivity analysis module show the adjoint (direct) methods.” - as clarified in § 1 ¶ 1: “The goal of structural shape optimization is to find the optimal shape of a structure to minimize (or maximize) an objective function and satisfy constraint inequalities that describe the structural response. Typically, shape optimization methods are composed of a design model, an analysis model, and an optimization algorithm [1]. The design model contains a parameterized geometrical description of the design domain, usually based on a computer aided design (CAD) model, while the analysis model employs numerical methods such as the finite element method (FEM) to compute the structural response using a FEM mesh, which approximates the CAD description of the design domain. These separate mathematical representations of the geometry in the design and analysis models is often problematic in structural optimization [13].”
And to further clarify see pages 4-5 the paragraph split between the pages: “Our NIGFEM approach optimizes the geometric NURBS parameters that define structural boundaries and material interfaces. We develop an analytic discrete derivative sensitivity to accurately and efficiently compute the derivatives that are required in gradient-based optimization” and § 2 ¶ 1: “A recent addition to the G/XFEM family, the NIGFEM was introduced to capture gradient discontinuities across material interfaces observed in heterogeneous structures subjected to mechanical and thermal loads using nonconforming meshes [58]. The method employs NURBS to augment the finite element approximation space and reduce geometric errors associated with the discretization of interfaces with complex geometries”; also see page 10 ¶ 1 and page 13 ¶ 1, then see pages 13-14 including page 14 14 last paragraph to further clarify: “To evaluate the integrals appearing over the enriched element subdomains … special care must be taken, cf. Fig. 2(b). We perform these integrations by Gaussian quadrature using Span-Wise Mapping (SWM) [58]...”
optimize, using the simulation of the input model, the at least one design parameter for the input model to generate an optimized model corresponding to the input model; (Najafi, § 4 on pages 27-28 including: “4. Compute objective and constraint functions g and hi 5. Perform sensitivity analysis to compute derivative of objective and constraint functions with respect to design variables di (a) Compute design velocity field Vi. Evaluate velocity of knots and enriched control points belonging to material interface NURBS curve via (57), (58), (61), and (63). ii. Evaluate velocity field and its special gradient for each integration point via (46)-(48) (b) Compute pseudo-load vector via (42) i. Compute derivative of global stiffness matrix via (43) ii. Compute derivative of global load vector via (44) (c) Evaluate sensitivities…” – and see accompanying fig. 5 including its caption: “Flowchart of a gradient-based shape optimization using NIGFEM. The solid (dashed) arrow lines in the sensitivity analysis module show the adjoint (direct) methods.” - as clarified in § 1 ¶ 1: “The goal of structural shape optimization is to find the optimal shape of a structure to minimize (or maximize) an objective function and satisfy constraint inequalities that describe the structural response. Typically, shape optimization methods are composed of a design model, an analysis model, and an optimization algorithm [1]. The design model contains a parameterized geometrical description of the design domain, usually based on a computer aided design (CAD) model, while the analysis model employs numerical methods such as the finite element method (FEM) to compute the structural response using a FEM mesh, which approximates the CAD description of the design domain. These separate mathematical representations of the geometry in the design and analysis models is often problematic in structural optimization [13].”
And to further clarify see pages 4-5 the paragraph split between the pages: “Our NIGFEM approach optimizes the geometric NURBS parameters that define structural boundaries and material interfaces. We develop an analytic discrete derivative sensitivity to accurately and efficiently compute the derivatives that are required in gradient-based optimization” and § 2 ¶ 1: “A recent addition to the G/XFEM family, the NIGFEM was introduced to capture gradient discontinuities across material interfaces observed in heterogeneous structures subjected to mechanical and thermal loads using nonconforming meshes [58]. The method employs NURBS to augment the finite element approximation space and reduce geometric errors associated with the discretization of interfaces with complex geometries”; also see page 10 ¶ 1 and page 13 ¶ 1, then see pages 13-14 including page 14 14 last paragraph to further clarify: “To evaluate the integrals appearing over the enriched element subdomains … special care must be taken, cf. Fig. 2(b). We perform these integrations by Gaussian quadrature using Span-Wise Mapping (SWM) [58]...”
wherein the optimizing is performed subject to enforcement of a predetermined constraint implicitly mapping one or more shape parameters to a set of control points of the boundary of the parameterized model … (Najafi, as cited above for the optimizing, then see § 3 for equation 39 for the hj equation which “denotes the constraint functions” wherein this is a function of the “enriched control point vector” and a function of “the design variable vector” wherein this further clarifies: “And that the design variables d parameterize the material interfaces… , specifically, they consist of original control point coordinates of the NURBS interface curves, i.e. not the control points introduced in the knot insertion procedure.”
to clarify on the BRI of shape parameters, page 16: “The present design analysis solution enables user 132 to utilize user device 130 to 20 define a shape parameter on the surface of input model 140/240/440, e.g., the radius r2 of cylinder C2”, and see page 9, ¶ 2 incl. eq. 2 wherein “q(p)” is a set of control points (see eq. 1 to clarify, the variable q is control points) -
e.g., Najafi, page 33 ¶ 1: “In this study, the design variables are the coordinates of the eleven interface control points, which allow the inclusion move throughout the domain. To prevent the intersection of the notch by the inclusion, we enforce that the distance dij between each [control] point i located along the inclusion boundary and each point point j on the notch 455 centerline satisfy the constraint dij 0:02L…”, e.g. page 35 ¶ 1: “To prevent the inclusions from overlapping, we impose a distance constructed between inclusions i and j satisfy such that dij Ri + Rj + 0:02L. We also define additional constraints that preclude the intersection of the notch by the inclusions.” – i.e. there are constraints on the control points/design variables of Najafi, wherein these constraints map shape parameters [e.g. constraints to prevent inclusions from overlapping] – to clarify, page 19, second to last paragraph: “A key component of any shape sensitivity analysis is the so-called design velocity field…, i.e. the derivative of the finite element node coordinates with respect to the shape parameters. In this NIGFEM shape optimization scheme, the design velocity field is only needed for the interface control points… because these are the only points that move during the shape optimization. We discuss this computation shortly.” – and these constraints are constraining the movement of the nodes – to clarify, note page 19, second to last paragraph, the partial with respect to variable “d”, i.e. the “shape parameters” is the variable “d” in Najafi, also called on page 19, ¶ 1 the “design variables”
While Najafi does not explicitly teach the use of “subvolumes” as Najafi is in 2D, Najafi as taken in view of Dang teaches:
…subvolumes… (Najafi, abstract and page 5, ¶ 1: “Although the formulation can be applied to 3D problems, we limit our discussion to the 2D case with NURBS curves representing domain boundaries and material interfaces.”
As taken in view of Dang, abstract, then see page 3, ¶ 2: “The present study focuses on mesh generation issues associated with a recently developed GFEM referred to as Interface-enriched Generalized Finite Element Method or IGFEM (Soghrati et al., 2012; Soghrati and Ahmadian, 2015). This method is based on the framework of GFEM and use a Lagrangian basis as enrichment. Recently, it has been extended to NURBS-based Interface enriched Generalized Finite Element Method or NIGFEM (Safdari et al., 2015, 2016 [note this is referring to various publications by Najafi et al. related to Najafi et al. as relied upon above]; Tan et al., 2015), where Non-Uniform Rational B-Splines or NURBS (Rogers, 2000) are employed as enrichment functions in the framework of IGFEM… This method has been developed on simple geometries modeled with a single NURBS surface. Extending the method to complex geometries containing multiple patches is the major goal of this work.”
Then see § 3.1 including: “In this section, we present a brief overview of the NIGFEM formulation for linear elastostatics problems. More details about the formulation are provided in (Safdari et al., 2015, 2016). We are interested in solving a 3D structural problem defined over the domain…” and then see § 3.2: “In its 3D implementation, NIGFEM uses structured linear hexahedral elements as the background mesh and represents the material interface geometry with 2D NURBS surfaces (Safdari et al., 2016). To construct enrichment functions for each element traversed by a material interface, the hexahedron is decomposed into two, three or four disjoint subspaces represented by 3D NURBS. In the next step, enrichment functions are constructed from linear combination of the basis functions of these 3D NURBS subspaces…” – see figures 7 and 9-10 for additional clarification
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Najafi on “NIGFEM” in 2D (Najafi, abstract) with the teachings from Dang on “NIGFEM” in a “3D implementation” (Dang § 3.2) The motivation to combine would have been that “In this thesis, the process of generating 3D non-conforming meshes for NURBS-based Interface-enriched Generalized Finite Element Method (NIGFEM) structural analysis of heterogeneous materials has been presented. As NURBS are utilized to augment the finite element approximation and minimize geometric errors, the NIGFEM is well suited for problems with complex geometrical features, for which the use of conforming meshes is both time consuming and inefficient. A range of tools based on a set of commercial packages (Amira, Geomagic and Matlab) used to perform 3D model reconstruction from X-ray tomographic images of heterogeneous materials has been described, leading to an accurate NURBS-based representation of the material interfaces… The results of linear elastic problems have shown a great potential of NIGFEM for the complex 3D structures” (Dang, § 6.1).
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that these references are already combined by Dang, i.e. Dang is extending the work of Najafi on NIGFEM to a 3D implementation.
While Najafi, in view of Dang, does not explicitly teach the following feature, Najafi, in view of Dang and Xu teaches: perform a parametric mapping of the input model based on the at least one design parameter to produce a parameterized model corresponding to the input model; (Najafi, as was cited above including the abstract: “…In the proposed method, non-uniform rational B-splines are used to parameterize the design geometry precisely and compactly by a small number of design variables….” And to clarify see § 1, ¶ 1: “The goal of structural shape optimization is to find the optimal shape of a structure to minimize (or maximize) an objective function and satisfy constraint inequalities that describe the structural response. Typically, shape optimization methods are composed of a design model, an analysis model, and an optimization algorithm [1]. The design model contains a parameterized geometrical description of the design domain, usually based on a computer aided design (CAD) model, while the analysis model employs numerical methods such as the finite element method (FEM) to compute the structural response using a FEM mesh, which approximates the CAD description of the design domain.” – i.e. the input model of Najafi is a parameterized NURBS model, as was taken in view of Dang as discussed above for the “3D implementation” of NIGFEM
as taken in further view of Xu, abstract: “High-quality volumetric parameterization of computational domain plays an important role in three dimensional isogeometric analysis. Reparameterization technique can improve the distribution of isoparametric curves/ surfaces without changing the geometry. In this paper, using the reparameterization method, we investigate the high quality construction of analysis-suitable NURBS volumetric parameterization. Firstly, we introduce the concept of volumetric reparameterization, and propose an optimal Möbius transformation to improve the quality of the isoparametric structure based on a new uniformity metric…” – see § 2.2 for details, including the equations and their descriptions, including: “Substituting (5) (6) and (7) into (1), we can obtain a new parametric form (ξ, η, ζ) for the NURBS solid with the same control points as in [16],…”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Najafi, as was modified above, on “NIGFEM” using NURBS models (Najafi, abstract) with the teachings from Xu a “reparameterization technique” for “NURBS” (Xu, abstract). The motivation to combine would have been that this would “improve the distribution of isoparametric curves/ surfaces without changing the geometry… improve the quality of the isoparametric structure based on a new uniformity metric” (Xu, abstract). Also see Xu, § 4: “The quality of boundary parameterization has great effect on the volumetric parameterization results. Reparameterization can improve the quality of boundary parameterization without changing the geometry. In this paper, NURBS volumetric reparameterization is introduced into isogeometric analysis using optimal Möbius transformation, and then the boundary reparameterization is performed as a pre-processing before constructing the inner control points and weights. Moreover, new uniformity metric and variational harmonic metric are also proposed for analysis-suitable volumetric parameterization. Experimental results illustrate that reparameterization methods can achieve high-quality NURBS volumetric parameterization, which are suitable for subsequent isogeometric analysis”
While Najafi, as was taken in view of Dang and Xu, does not teach the following feature explicitly, Najafi, as taken in view of Dang, Xu, and Fonte teaches: and design a mold using the optimized model, wherein a new mechanical object is manufactured using the mold. (Najafi, as taken in view of Dang and Xu above, including Najafi as was cited above for the optimizing limitation incl. fig. 5 as described in § 4
As taken in further view of Fonte, ¶ 300: “…The final eyewear representation, preferences, dimensions, configuration data, once in the manufacturer's computer system, are analyzed to create both a manufacturing work order and set of manufacturing CAD, CAM, CNC, or other manufacturing and modeling files automatically. A serialized identifier linked to the user's order is created to track the eyewear as it moves through the production process… The computer system also prepares manufacturing files depending on the method of manufacture needed for the particular eyewear model, including but not limited to: model files for rapid prototyping or additive manufacturing methods; model files converted into tool-path CNC code for machining (e.g. g-code), routing, milling, or other Subtractive manufacturing methods; model files converted into flat patterns for photo-etching; model files converted into flat patterns with tool-path or robotic control code for laser-cutting: laser-marking/etching, waterjet cutting, stamping (and stamp tool production), punching (and punch tool production), or other 2-D cutting methods; model files converted into rapid prototyping or additive manufacturing methods of an inverse geometry to create a mold for injection molding, casting, or other tool production, and model files converted into robotic control instructions for part handling, polishing, assembly, drilling, cutting, etc.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Najafi, as was modified above, on a system for “shape optimization… applicable to multi-material structures” (Najafi, abstract) with the teachings from Fonte on “Systems and methods for creating fully custom products from scratch without exclusive use of off-the-shelf or pre-specified components.” (Fonte, abstract) wherein this included “Manufacturing Custom Products” (¶ 300).
The motivation to combine would have been that “More particularly, the Subject invention creates, manufactures, and delivers custom personal products on-demand that are best Suited to the needs and preferences of an individual user by building the product from a specification that is generated from automatic and/or user-guided user specific preference profiles and by building a unique one-up custom product based on the profiles” (Fonte, ¶ 2); also see ¶¶ 3-8 to clarify including: “…That having been said, it will be appreciated that describing the invention in terms of the creation, production and delivery of eyewear carries a large number of similarities to the creation, production and delivering of a wide variety of products customized to the features and desires of the user… A clear need exists for a shopping experience that enables a unique made-to-order product with high quality materials and design, at a price that users believe is fair and affordable for a made from scratch unique one up item, and an easier and more custom experience to creating and purchasing the perfect product for the individual, in this case a pair of glasses…”
While Najafi, as was modified above, does not explicitly teach the following, it would have been obvious when Najafi was taken in further view of Jahn:
… that keeps a number and topology of patches included in the boundary of the parameterized model fixed;(See Najafi, as was cited above, incl: Najafi page 19, second to last paragraph: “A key component of any shape sensitivity analysis is the so-called design velocity field…, i.e. the derivative of the finite element node coordinates with respect to the shape parameters. In this NIGFEM shape optimization scheme, the design velocity field is only needed for the interface control points… because these are the only points that move during the shape optimization. We discuss this computation shortly.” – and see § 7, ¶ 1: “Since the optimization is performed over a fixed finite element mesh, the interface velocity field is sufficient to evaluate the shape sensitivity of the objective and constraints functions, thereby eliminating the need to compute the domain velocity field.”
As taken in view of Jahn, abstract and § 1 second to last paragraph incl.: “A number of authors have used the NURBS control points as design variables [21, 29] but considered only geometries with a single patch or only deformation inside a patch. The main challenge to generalise this approach is to maintain the required level of continuity of tangency and curvature between adjacent NURBS patches when a control point on or near a patch interface is displaced. The proposed method introduces constraints for geometric continuity across NURBS patch interfaces and is hence termed ‘NURBS-based parametrisation with continuity constraints’ or NsPCC”
To clarify, Jahn, § 4, ¶¶ 3-4: “In contrast to this, we propose to base the CAD parametrisation on the BRep, which uses a collection of NURBS patches as given in the standardised STEP format. To modify the shape, each control point of a NURBS patch is allowed to move in all directions, hence each representing 3 degrees of freedom (DoF). A simple example of a NURBS patch with its associated controls points is shown in Figure 1, which also illustrates how the perturbation of a control point changes the shape of the NURBS patch. Allowing every control point to move in all directions represents the richest design space the CAD model is able to express…” then see § 5: “The finite displacement of a control point P on or near a patch interface typically results in violation of the continuity constraints; for example, control points on an interface to a fixed/nonmoveable patch must not move at all to maintain G0 continuity (no gaps). Requiring in this case G1 (tangent) and G2 (curvature) continuity will additionally lock the second and third rows of control points. Similarly, control point displacements on moveable patch interfaces imply constraints on the neighbouring rows of control points along the interfaces….In our approach, the constraints are evaluated at a number of test points that are distributed along a coincident parametric edge or the intersection line of both patches. Figure 2 shows two NURBS patches sharing one common edge. Note that the number of control points along the common edge could be different for the left and right patches, but the test points are always deployed in pairs, with one on each NURBS patch…Continuity constraints for each pair of test points then express that location, tangent plane (for G1) and curvature (for G2) are identical on all patches containing this pair of test points…To satisfy the continuity constraints in a linearised sense, the perturbations of the control points ıP have to lie within the null space of the constraint matrix C…” and see § 6 for more details, and § 8 for a summary, incl.: “Geometric continuity at interfaces between NURBS patches is imposed as constraints throughout the optimisation process…Constraints are maintained linearly by requiring the control point displacements to remain in the null space of the constraint matrix and by perpendicular recovery steps in the range of the constraint matrix to correct for the nonlinear behaviour of G1 and higher constraint…The proposed method hence satisfies the key requirements on design parametrisations for industrial application…(b) the design space is as rich as can possibly be expressed in the given BRep and is by construction smooth: the regularity inside patches is given by the order of the patch basis functions, and regularity across patch interfaces is controlled by user-imposed geometric continuity constraints; (c) it permits imposition of geometric constraints such as geometric continuity, and also buildspace, manufacturing or maximum curvature;” – i.e. these constraints maintained the continuity between the control points of adjacent NURBs patches (§ 5 ¶ 1) while only moving the control points in each patch (i.e. same number and topology of patches)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Najafi on NIGFEM which moved only the control points during shape optimization (see above) with the teachings from Jahn on a similar technique which imposed constraints on the control point movement. The motivation to combine would have been that “(b) the design space is as rich as can possibly be expressed in the given BRep and is by construction smooth: the regularity inside patches is given by the order of the patch basis functions, and regularity across patch interfaces is controlled by user-imposed geometric continuity constraints; (c) it permits imposition of geometric constraints such as geometric continuity, and also buildspace, manufacturing or maximum curvature” (Jahn, § 8). To clarify, § 5 ¶¶ 1-2 as was cited above.
Regarding Claim 2
Najafi teaches: The automated mechanical design analysis system of claim 1, wherein the input model is a boundary representation of the mechanical object. (Najafi, as cited above, including the abstract for “In the proposed method, NURBS are used to parameterize the design geometry precisely and compactly by a small number of design variables.” And § 4 # 1)
Regarding Claim 3
Najafi teaches:
The automated mechanical design analysis system of claim 1, wherein the input model comprises a plurality of Non-Uniform Rational Basis Spline (NURBS) patches forming a C0 surface. (Najafi, as cited above, including the abstract for “In the proposed method, NURBS are used to parameterize the design geometry precisely and compactly by a small number of design variables.” And § 4 # 1, and page 13 ¶ 1: “Moreover, due to the C0 continuity of these functions across the interface, they are able to enforce displacement continuity but allow for displacement gradient discontinuities” – to clarify, page 10 ¶ 1: “To generate enrichment functions for each element e that is subdivided by the interface we need to construct 2D NURBS patches on the element subdomains… shown in Fig. 2(b)”)
Regarding Claim 4
Najafi teaches:
The automated mechanical design analysis system of claim 1, wherein the input model comprises a Computer-Aided Design (CAD) model. (Najafi, abstract including: “In the proposed method, NURBS are used to parameterize the design geometry precisely and compactly by a small number of design variables.” and § 4 including fig. 5 as discussed above, then see § 1 ¶ 1: “The goal of structural shape optimization is to find the optimal shape of a structure to minimize (or maximize) an objective function and satisfy constraint inequalities that describe the structural response. Typically, shape optimization methods are composed of a design model, an analysis model, and an optimization algorithm [1]. The design model contains a parameterized geometrical description of the design domain, usually based on a computer aided design (CAD) model, while the analysis model employs numerical methods such as the finite element method (FEM) to compute the structural response using a FEM mesh, which approximates the CAD description of the design domain.”
Regarding Claim 5
Najafi, in view of Dang teaches:
The automated mechanical design analysis system of claim 1, wherein a three-dimensional (3D) geometry of the grid remains constant. (Najafi, fig. 2 (LEFT) and § 2.2 show the use of a constant square grid in 2D; i.e. this is a “non-conforming fixed FEM mesh” (fig. 1 caption; as taken in view of Dang, § 3.2: “In its 3D implementation, NIGFEM uses structured linear hexahedral elements as the background mesh and represents the material interface geometry with 2D NURBS surfaces (Safdari et al., 2016). To construct enrichment functions for each element traversed by a material interface, the hexahedron is decomposed into two, three or four disjoint subspaces represented by 3D NURBS….” – as visually depicted in fig. 10, which shows a regular hexahedral grid).
The rationale to combine is the same as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 6
Najafi, in view of Dang teaches:
The automated mechanical design analysis system of claim 1, wherein the grid is a regular hexahedral grid. (Najafi, fig. 2 (LEFT) and § 2.2 show the use of a constant square grid in 2D; i.e. this is a “non-conforming fixed FEM mesh” (fig. 1 caption; as taken in view of Dang, § 3.2: “In its 3D implementation, NIGFEM uses structured linear hexahedral elements as the background mesh and represents the material interface geometry with 2D NURBS surfaces (Safdari et al., 2016). To construct enrichment functions for each element traversed by a material interface, the hexahedron is decomposed into two, three or four disjoint subspaces represented by 3D NURBS….” – as visually depicted in fig. 10, which shows a regular hexahedral grid).
The rationale to combine is the same as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 11.
Claim 11 is rejected under a similar rationale as claim 1 as discussed above, wherein Najafi teaches: A method comprising (Najafi, as cited above, including the abstract, i.e. it’s a computer implemented method)
Regarding Claim 12.
This is rejected under a similar rationale as claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 13.
This is rejected under a similar rationale as claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 14.
This is rejected under a similar rationale as claim 4 above.
Regarding Claim 15.
This is rejected under a similar rationale as claim 5 above.
Regarding Claim 16.
This is rejected under a similar rationale as claim 6 above.
Regarding Claim 24.
Najafi teaches:
The automated mechanical design system of claim 1, wherein the optimizing is based on an objective that comprises a term that directly depends on the one or more shape parameters. (Najafi, page 19, second to last paragraph: “A key component of any shape sensitivity analysis is the so-called design velocity field…, i.e. the derivative of the finite element node coordinates with respect to the shape parameters. In this NIGFEM shape optimization scheme, the design velocity field is only needed for the interface control points… because these are the only points that move during the shape optimization. We discuss this computation shortly.” – and these constraints are constraining the movement of the nodes – to clarify, note page 19, second to last paragraph, the partial with respect to variable “d”, i.e. the “shape parameters” is the variable “d” in Najafi, also called on page 19, ¶ 1 the “design variables” – then, see eq. 39 on page 18, i.e. the shape parameters/design variables d is in the objective function a multitude of times (i.e. all the other variables “are all functions of d” at page 19 ¶ 1))
Regarding Claim 25.
Rejected under a similar rationale as claim 24 above.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Najafi et al., "Shape optimization using a NURBS‐based interface‐enriched generalized FEM." International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 111.10 (2017): 927-954, in view of Qi Dang, “FROM MICRO-CT TO A NURBS-BASED INTERFACE-ENRICHED GENERALIZED FINITE ELEMENT METHOD”, Master’s Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, March 28th, 2019 in further view of Xu et al., “High-quality construction of analysis-suitable trivariate NURBS solids by reparameterization methods”, 2014 and in further view of Fonte et al., US 2015/0055086 and in further view of Xu, Shenren, Wolfram Jahn, and Jens‐Dominik Müller (hereinafter Jahn). "CAD‐based shape optimisation with CFD using a discrete adjoint." International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 74.3 (2014): 153-168 and in further view of Schumacher, Christian, Jonas Zehnder, and Moritz Bächer. "Set-in-stone: worst-case optimization of structures weak in tension." ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 37.6 (2018): 1-13.
Of note is the asterisk on the name Zehnder, wherein this designates that “The first two authors contributed equally” – see MPEP § 2153.01(a): ‘If, however, the application names fewer joint inventors than a publication (e.g., the application names as joint inventors A and B, and the publication names as authors A, B and C), it would not be readily apparent from the publication that it is an inventor-originated disclosure and the publication would be treated as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) unless there is evidence of record that an exception under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) applies”
Regarding Claim 8
While Najafi, as taken in combination above does not explicitly teach the following, Najafi, as taken in combination above, taken in further view of Schumacher teaches:
The automated mechanical design analysis system of claim 1, wherein the new mechanical object has an improved strength-to-weight ratio and an improved mass distribution relative to the mechanical object. (Najafi, as discussed above in combination with the other references relied upon, taken in further view of Schumacher, fig. 1: “We optimize the strength-to-weight ratio and mass distribution of binder-jetted, large-scale structures under worst-case loads, in order to make them durable (left, middle, right) and stand (right).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Najafi, as was modified above, on a system for “shape optimization… applicable to multi-material structures” (Najafi, abstract) with the teachings from Schumacher on optimizing both strength-to-weight ratio and mass distribution. The motivation to combine would have been that this would have resulted in products that were “durable” (Schumacher, fig. 1)
Regarding Claim 18.
Rejected under a similar rationale as claim 8.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Najafi et al., "Shape optimization using a NURBS‐based interface‐enriched generalized FEM." International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 111.10 (2017): 927-954, in view of Qi Dang, “FROM MICRO-CT TO A NURBS-BASED INTERFACE-ENRICHED GENERALIZED FINITE ELEMENT METHOD”, Master’s Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, March 28th, 2019 in further view of Xu et al., “High-quality construction of analysis-suitable trivariate NURBS solids by reparameterization methods”, 2014 and in further view of Fonte et al., US 2015/0055086 and in further view of Xu, Shenren, Wolfram Jahn, and Jens‐Dominik Müller (hereinafter Jahn). "CAD‐based shape optimisation with CFD using a discrete adjoint." International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 74.3 (2014): 153-168 and in further view of Chen et al., "An asymptotic numerical method for inverse elastic shape design." ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 33.4 (2014): 1-11.
Regarding Claim 10.
While Najafi, in view of Dang, Xu, and Fonte, does not explicitly teach the following feature, Najafi, in view of Dang, Xu, Fonte, and Chen teaches:
The automated mechanical design analysis system of claim 1, wherein the new mechanical object has an improved rest shape relative to the mechanical object. (Najafi, as was taken in combination above, including Najafi abstract and fig. 5; as taken in further view of Chen pg. 1 col. 1 “development of an inverse shape design tool automatically computing a rest shape that deforms into a desired target shape under given external forces” and col. 2 “the deformed shape x and the external force g are the inputs, and X is the rest shape to be found.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Najafi, as was modified above, on a system for “shape optimization… applicable to multi-material structures” (Najafi, abstract) with the teachings from Chen on “However, designing a desired static equilibrium shape of an elastic object is counterintuitive, because it deforms in various ways under external forces. When designing the static shapes of elastic objects, one wishes to focus on desired target shapes directly without thinking about possible deformations. This motivates the development of an inverse shape design tool automatically computing a rest shape that deforms into a desired target shape under given external forces (see Figure 1(a-c)).” (Chen, § 1 ¶ 1).
The motivation to combine would have been that “However, designing a desired static equilibrium shape of an elastic object is counterintuitive, because it deforms in various ways under external forces. When designing the static shapes of elastic objects, one wishes to focus on desired target shapes directly without thinking about possible deformations. This motivates the development of an inverse shape design tool automatically computing a rest shape that deforms into a desired target shape under given external forces (see Figure 1(a-c)).” (Chen, § 1 ¶ 1). An additional motivation to combine would have been that “We apply our method to compute rest shapes for elastic fabrication. Our design tool computes a rest shape ready for physical fabrication, allowing an end-to-end integration between the shape design step and the fabrication process.” (Chen, page 2, col. 1, ¶ 2).
Regarding Claim 20.
This is rejected under a similar rationale as the similar limitations in claim 10 as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hartmann, US 2018/0129764 – see the abstract and fig. 1B # 114 along with its accompanying description.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A. HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-0537. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10AM to 7 PM EST.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. 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.
/David A Hopkins/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188