DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in responsive to the applicant’s arguments filed on 10/28/25.
2. The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
3. Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-23, 25 and 28 are currently pending.
4. Claims 1, 11 and 21 are amended. Claims 4, 14, 24 and 26-27 are cancelled.
5. Claims 2-3, 8-9, 12-13, 18-19 and 25 are previously presented. Claims 5-7, 10, 15-17, 20 and 22-23 are original.
6. Claim 28 is new.
Response to Arguments
Response: 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the amended claims are not directed towards a mental process
because the claimed steps are not practically performed in the human mind or using pen/paper. The applicant argues that amended limitations of the multi-objective solver cannot be performed in the human mind, therefore does not recite a mental process. (Remarks: Pages 10-11)
8. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that the amended limitation of the multi-objective solver that states “iteratively optimizing, via the multi-objective solver, the structural relationships specified by the structural model and the functional relationships specified by the functional model to generate the design for the system comprising, at each iteration simultaneously adjusting geometry dimensions and material selection for each component in the plurality of components of the system based on a load associated with each component, the set of component-level criteria, and the set of system-level criteria of the first set of criteria” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the structural or functional relationships are or what the component level and system level criteria are. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) “(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of iteratively optimizing, via the multi-objective solver, the structural relationships specified by the structural model and the functional relationships specified by the functional model to generate the design for the system comprising, at each iteration simultaneously adjusting geometry dimensions and material selection for each component in the plurality of components of the system based on a load associated with each component, the set of component-level criteria, and the set of system-level criteria of the first set of criteria amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where the multi-objective solver is functioning as a tool, see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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.
9. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the amended claims recite limitations that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The applicant argues that the claimed approach is directed towards the practical application of performing both component-level and system-level optimizations of a collection of system components via a multi-objective solver that iteratively optimizes structural and functional relationships between the system components to meet component-level and system- level design criteria and generate a system design. The applicant points to paragraph [0106] of the specification for support as to why the amended claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The applicant also states that through this practical application, the claimed approach imparts the technological improvement of automatically optimizing the entire system design based on component- level and system-level design criteria, whereby each system component can be optimized independently and in relation to other components within the system. (Remarks: Page 11)
10. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that even with the recent amendment, the claims are still not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The examiner notes that as stated above, the limitation of claim 1 that states “iteratively optimizing, via the multi-objective solver, the structural relationships specified by the structural model and the functional relationships specified by the functional model to generate the design for the system comprising, at each iteration simultaneously adjusting geometry dimensions and material selection for each component in the plurality of components of the system based on a load associated with each component, the set of component-level criteria, and the set of system-level criteria of the first set of criteria” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the structural or functional relationships are or what the component level and system level criteria are. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) “(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
11. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the amended claims are directed towards to a technological solution to a technological problem. The applicant points to the court cases of Finjan Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., Weisner v. Google LLC, and DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com for support as to why the current claims are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. (Remarks: Pages 11-13)
12. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that in the Finjan Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc. court case, the claims are directed towards linking a security profile to a downloadable, a computer gateway that protects a private intranet from malicious software embedded in webpages on the public Internet, and a "policy-based" cache manager that can efficiently manage cached content according to a plurality of security policies. None of the claims from these patents (‘844, ‘731, and ‘968) are similar to the claims of the current application. The claims of the current application are directed towards a system-level approach to goal-driven design.
Also, the applicant points to the McRO court case for support as to why the claim language shows an improvement to the technology or technological processes. The examiner notes that in the McRO case, the court used a claim construction analysis, interpreting the claimed “first set of rules” as being limited to rules that evaluate sub-sequences consisting of multiple sequential phonemes. Under this interpretation, the court found while the claims may not recite a particular species of rules to be applied, they are still limited to a particular genus of rules (i.e., those that evaluate sequences of multiple phonemes) and therefore do not preempt all rules-based techniques for solving the problem at hand. The examiner notes that in the current claims, a criterion is mentioned for a component level and a system level. However, it’s unclear how the criteria on the component level and system level are improving the technology. The technology is CAD, where the design is generated in a CAD.
Also, the applicant points to the Visual Memory v. NVIDIA court case for support as to why the claim language shows an improvement to the technology or technological processes. The examiner notes that the court looked at the claimed invention as described in the specification, where different types of processors to be installed with the subject memory system without significantly compromising their individual performance" and that this performance "can outperform a prior art memory system that is armed with a cache many times larger than the cumulative size of the subject caches. The examiner notes that in the current claims, a criterion is mentioned for a component level and a system level. However, it’s unclear how the criteria on the component level and system level are improving the technology. The technology is CAD, where the design is generated in a CAD.
Also, the applicant also looks to the DDR Holding case for support as to why the claims are patentable under 35 U.S.C. 101. The examiner notes that in the DDR Holding case, it’s determined that the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. This is shown where upon a click of an advertisement for a third-party product displayed on a host’s website, the visitor is no longer transported to a third party’s website. The visitor is directed to an automatically generated hybrid web page that combines visual look and feel of elements from the host website and product information from the third-party merchant’s website. Also, the claims of the DDR Holding case recite a specific way to automate the creation of a composite web page by an “outsource provider” that incorporates elements from multiple sources in order to solve a problem faced by websites on the Internet. In the current application, the applicant argues that the claim language shows an improvement to the technology or technological processes. However, the current claims aren’t similar to the DDR Holding case, where there isn’t a selection of a product where a user can view that product from a third party. Further, the current claims doesn’t recite a specific way that incorporates elements from multiple sources in order to calculate the stress in a device.
Response: 35 U.S.C. § 103
13. The examiner’s response regarding the applicant’s arguments to the newly added limitations are shown below.
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 1-3, 5-13, 15-23, 25 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims covers performance of the limitation in the mind or by pencil and paper.
Claims 1, 11 and 21
Regarding step 1, claims 1, 11 and 21 are directed towards a method, a medium and a system, which has the claims fall within the eligible statutory categories of processes, machines, manufactures and composition of matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites “generating, by a computer-aided design application that executes a multi- objective solver via a processor, a system model comprising a structural model and a functional model”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the structural model specifies structural relationships between the plurality of components of the system based on the first set of criteria, and the functional model specifies functional relationships between the plurality of components of the system”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the functional model specifies at least a first function that includes a transference of energy between two components of the system”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “receiving a first set of criteria comprising a set of component-level criteria associated with a plurality of components of the system and a set of system-level criteria of the system” amounts insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “iteratively optimizing, via the multi-objective solver, the structural relationships specified by the structural model and the functional relationships specified by the functional model to generate the design for the system comprising, at each iteration simultaneously adjusting geometry dimensions and material selection for each component in the plurality of components of the system based on a load associated with each component, the set of component-level criteria, and the set of system-level criteria of the first set of criteria” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the structural or functional relationships are or what the component level and system level criteria are. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) “(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of iteratively optimizing, via the multi-objective solver, the structural relationships specified by the structural model and the functional relationships specified by the functional model to generate the design for the system comprising, at each iteration simultaneously adjusting geometry dimensions and material selection for each component in the plurality of components of the system based on a load associated with each component, the set of component-level criteria, and the set of system-level criteria of the first set of criteria amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where the multi-objective solver is functioning as a tool, see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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.
Also, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of the computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine, see MPEP 2106.05(b) 1. It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that Alappat’s rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions).
Further, the claim recites the additional element of a computer. The computer is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of receiving a first set of criteria comprising a set of component-level criteria associated with a plurality of components of the system and a set of system-level criteria of the system is also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the limitation of “iteratively optimizing, via the multi-objective solver, the structural relationships specified by the structural model and the functional relationships specified by the functional model to generate the design for the system comprising, at each iteration simultaneously adjusting geometry dimensions and material selection for each component in the plurality of components of the system based on a load associated with each component, the set of component-level criteria, and the set of system-level criteria of the first set of criteria” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the structural or functional relationships are or what the component level and system level criteria are. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) “(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of iteratively optimizing, via the multi-objective solver, the structural relationships specified by the structural model and the functional relationships specified by the functional model to generate the design for the system comprising, at each iteration simultaneously adjusting geometry dimensions and material selection for each component in the plurality of components of the system based on a load associated with each component, the set of component-level criteria, and the set of system-level criteria of the first set of criteria amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where the multi-objective solver is functioning as a tool, see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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.
Also, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of the computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine, see MPEP 2106.05(b) 1. It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that Alappat’s rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions).
Claim 11
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 11 recites “generating, by a computer-aided design application that executes a multi- objective solver via the processor, a system model comprising a structural model and a functional model”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the structural model specifies structural relationships between the plurality of components of the system based on the first set of criteria, and the functional model specifies functional relationships between the plurality of components of the system”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the functional model specifies at least a first function that includes a transference of energy between two components of the system”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “receiving a first set of criteria comprising a set of component-level criteria associated with a plurality of components of the system and a set of system-level criteria of the system” amounts insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “iteratively optimizing, via the multi-objective solver, the structural relationships specified by the structural model and the functional relationships specified by the functional model to generate the design for the system comprising, at each iteration simultaneously adjusting geometry dimensions and material selection for each component in the plurality of components of the system based on a load associated with each component, the set of component-level criteria, and the set of system-level criteria of the first set of criteria” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the structural or functional relationships are or what the component level and system level criteria are. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) “(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of iteratively optimizing, via the multi-objective solver, the structural relationships specified by the structural model and the functional relationships specified by the functional model to generate the design for the system comprising, at each iteration simultaneously adjusting geometry dimensions and material selection for each component in the plurality of components of the system based on a load associated with each component, the set of component-level criteria, and the set of system-level criteria of the first set of criteria amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where the multi-objective solver is functioning as a tool, see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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.
Also, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of the processor that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine, see MPEP 2106.05(b) 1. It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that Alappat’s rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions).
Further, the claim recites the additional elements of a processor and medium. The processor and medium are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of receiving a first set of criteria comprising a set of component-level criteria associated with a plurality of components of the system and a set of system-level criteria of the system is also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the limitation of “iteratively optimizing, via the multi-objective solver, the structural relationships specified by the structural model and the functional relationships specified by the functional model to generate the design for the system comprising, at each iteration simultaneously adjusting geometry dimensions and material selection for each component in the plurality of components of the system based on a load associated with each component, the set of component-level criteria, and the set of system-level criteria of the first set of criteria” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the structural or functional relationships are or what the component level and system level criteria are. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) “(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of iteratively optimizing, via the multi-objective solver, the structural relationships specified by the structural model and the functional relationships specified by the functional model to generate the design for the system comprising, at each iteration simultaneously adjusting geometry dimensions and material selection for each component in the plurality of components of the system based on a load associated with each component, the set of component-level criteria, and the set of system-level criteria of the first set of criteria amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where the multi-objective solver is functioning as a tool, see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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.
Also, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of the processor that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine, see MPEP 2106.05(b) 1. It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that Alappat’s rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions).
Claim 21
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 21 recites “generating, by a computer-aided design application that executes a multi- objective solver via the one or more processors, a system model comprising a structural model and a functional model”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the structural model specifies structural relationships between the plurality of components of the system based on the first set of criteria, and the functional model specifies functional relationships between the plurality of components of the system”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the functional model specifies at least a first function that includes a transference of energy between two components of the system”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “receiving a first set of criteria comprising a set of component-level criteria associated with a plurality of components of the system and a set of system-level criteria of the system” amounts insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “iteratively optimizing, via the multi-objective solver, the structural relationships specified by the structural model and the functional relationships specified by the functional model to generate the design for the system comprising, at each iteration simultaneously adjusting geometry dimensions and material selection for each component in the plurality of components of the system based on a load associated with each component, the set of component-level criteria, and the set of system-level criteria of the first set of criteria” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the structural or functional relationships are or what the component level and system level criteria are. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) “(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of iteratively optimizing, via the multi-objective solver, the structural relationships specified by the structural model and the functional relationships specified by the functional model to generate the design for the system comprising, at each iteration simultaneously adjusting geometry dimensions and material selection for each component in the plurality of components of the system based on a load associated with each component, the set of component-level criteria, and the set of system-level criteria of the first set of criteria amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where the multi-objective solver is functioning as a tool, see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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.
Also, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of the processor that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine, see MPEP 2106.05(b) 1. It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that Alappat’s rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions).
Further, the claim recites the additional elements of a processor and memory. The processor and memory are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of receiving a first set of criteria comprising a set of component-level criteria associated with a plurality of components of the system and a set of system-level criteria of the system is also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the limitation of “iteratively optimizing, via the multi-objective solver, the structural relationships specified by the structural model and the functional relationships specified by the functional model to generate the design for the system comprising, at each iteration simultaneously adjusting geometry dimensions and material selection for each component in the plurality of components of the system based on a load associated with each component, the set of component-level criteria, and the set of system-level criteria of the first set of criteria” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the structural or functional relationships are or what the component level and system level criteria are. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) “(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of iteratively optimizing, via the multi-objective solver, the structural relationships specified by the structural model and the functional relationships specified by the functional model to generate the design for the system comprising, at each iteration simultaneously adjusting geometry dimensions and material selection for each component in the plurality of components of the system based on a load associated with each component, the set of component-level criteria, and the set of system-level criteria of the first set of criteria amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where the multi-objective solver is functioning as a tool, see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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.
Also, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of the processor that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine, see MPEP 2106.05(b) 1. It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that Alappat’s rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions).
Claims 2 and 12
Dependent claims 2 and 12 recites “wherein generating the design of the system further comprises performing one or more topology generation operations based on the first set of criteria”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the performing is being conducted or what the first set of criteria is. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) “(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Claims 3 and 13
Dependent claims 3 and 13 recites “wherein generating the design of the system further comprises adjusting at least one of connectivity between the components, disposition of the components relative to each other, or materials of the components based on the first set of criteria”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an evaluation and judgment. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 5 and 15
Dependent claims 5 and 15 recites “wherein the system model is further generated based on one or more templates associated with at least one of taxonomic, structural, or functional aspects of the system”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, this limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) “(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Claims 6 and 16
Dependent claims 6 and 16 recites “wherein generating the system model comprises updating the one or more templates based on the first set of criteria”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, this limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the first set of criteria are. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) “(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Claims 7 and 17
Dependent claims 7 and 17 recites “wherein the first set of criteria further comprises at least one of design constraints or boundary conditions”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 8 and 18
Dependent claims 8 and 18 recites “wherein the set of component-level criteria comprises at least one of a force exerted by one of the components on another of the components, a type of connection between two of the components, or a distance between two of the components”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 9 and 19
Dependent claims 9 and 19 recites “wherein the set of system- level criteria comprise at least one of a total mass of the system or a total cost of the system”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 10 and 20
Dependent claims 10 and 20 recites “receiving a second set of criteria”. This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
Dependent claims 10 and 20 recites “and updating the system model based on the second set of criteria”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, this limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the second set of criteria are. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) “(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Claim 22
Dependent claim 22 recites “wherein the computer system comprises a server machine”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 23
Dependent claim 23 recites “wherein the computer system comprises a user device”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 25
Dependent claim 25 recites “wherein the first function includes a transference of at least one of force, torque, or heat between the two components of the system”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 28
Dependent claim 28 recites “wherein iteratively optimizing the functional relationships specified by the functional model includes iteratively optimizing the first function that includes a transference of force or torque between the two components of the system.”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the components are or how the force or torque between the components are being conducted. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) “(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-23, 25 and 28 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 11, 15 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limaiem et al. (U.S. Patent 6,477,517) (from IDS dated 12/27/21) in view of Chen et al. (U.S. PGPub 2004/0148145) in further view of Schindler et al. (U.S. PGPub 2014/0278699).
With respect to claim 1, Limaiem et al. discloses “A computer-implemented method for generating a design for a system” as [Limaiem et al. (Col. 2 lines 12-20, “Accordingly, the present invention is a method of knowledge-based engineering design of an instrument panel for a vehicle. The method includes the steps of defining a parameter of the instrument panel using a knowledge-based engineering library stored in a memory of a computer system, generating a model of the instrument panel based on the parameter and analyzing the model of the instrument panel”)];
“receiving a first set of criteria comprising a set of component-level criteria associated with a plurality of components of the system and a set of system-level criteria of the system” as [Limaiem et al. (Col. 9 lines 45-48, “The methodology advances to block 208 and determines if the preliminary model of the instrument panel design meets a predetermined criteria from the knowledge-based engineering library 12”, Limaiem et al. Col. 10 lines 1-10, “The methodology advances to diamond 218 and determines if the detailed model meets a predetermined criteria such as a rule or guideline from the knowledge-based engineering library 12. An example of a predetermined criteria is a feature design guideline from a feature library, to be described. Another example of a predetermined criteria is the availability of a fastener from a fastener library, to be described”)];
While Limaiem et al. teaches receiving a first set of criteria comprising one or more criteria associated with components of the system, Limaiem et al. does not explicitly disclose “generating, by a computer-aided design application that executes a multi- objective solver via a processor, a system model comprising a structural model and a functional model; wherein the structural model specifies structural relationships between the plurality of components of the system based on the first set of criteria, and the functional model specifies functional relationships between the plurality of components of the system; iteratively optimizing, via the multi-objective solver, the structural relationships specified by the structural model and the functional relationships specified by the functional model to generate the design for the system comprising, at each iteration simultaneously adjusting geometry dimensions and material selection for each component in the plurality of components of the system based on a load associated with each component, the set of component-level criteria, and the set of system-level criteria of the first set of criteria”
Chen et al. discloses “generating, by a computer-aided design application that executes a multi- objective solver via a processor, a system model comprising a structural model and a functional model” as [Chen et al. (paragraph [0032] “The knowledge-based engineering library 12 may include information such as design, assembly and manufacturing rules and guidelines. The knowledge-based engineering library 12 may also contain data in electronic form regarding various types of vehicle subsystems.”, Chen et al. paragraph [0035] “Solid modeling, for example, takes electronically stored vehicle model data from the model library 14a and standard component parts data from the knowledge-based engineering library 12 and builds complex geometry for part-to-part or full assembly analysis.”, Chen et al. paragraph [0043] “The base model 50 is preferably stored in a database, such as the previously described model library 14a for quicker direct mesh modeling, feature creation, and manipulation. In this example, the base model 50 is the design of a vehicle. Preferably, the base mesh model 50 is a geometric model for performing a CAE simulation to assess the geometric properties of the model, and the model is imported into the methodology.”, The examiner considers the solid modeling to be the functional model, since the solid modeling takes stored vehicle model data and standard component parts data and builds complex geometry for part-to-part or full assembly analysis. Also, the examiner considers the base model to be the structural model, since the base model is the design of the vehicle, where the geometric properties of the model can be assessed)];
“wherein the structural model specifies structural relationships between the plurality of components of the system based on the first set of criteria, and the functional model specifies functional relationships between the plurality of components of the system” as [Chen et al. (paragraph [0032] “The knowledge-based engineering library 12 may include information such as design, assembly and manufacturing rules and guidelines. The knowledge-based engineering library 12 may also contain data in electronic form regarding various types of vehicle subsystems.”, Chen et al. paragraph [0035] “Solid modeling, for example, takes electronically stored vehicle model data from the model library 14a and standard component parts data from the knowledge-based engineering library 12 and builds complex geometry for part-to-part or full assembly analysis.”, Chen et al. paragraph [0043] “The base model 50 is preferably stored in a database, such as the previously described model library 14a for quicker direct mesh modeling, feature creation, and manipulation. In this example, the base model 50 is the design of a vehicle. Preferably, the base mesh model 50 is a geometric model for performing a CAE simulation to assess the geometric properties of the model, and the model is imported into the methodology.”, The examiner considers the solid modeling to be the functional model, since the solid modeling takes stored vehicle model data and standard component parts data and builds complex geometry for part-to-part or full assembly analysis. Also, the examiner considers the base model to be the structural model, since the base model is the design of the vehicle, where the geometric properties of the model can be assessed)];
“iteratively optimizing, via the multi-objective solver, the structural relationships specified by the structural model and the functional relationships specified by the functional model to generate the design for the system comprising, at each iteration simultaneously adjusting geometry dimensions and material selection for each component in the plurality of components of the system based on a load associated with each component, the set of component-level criteria, and the set of system-level criteria of the first set of criteria” as [Chen et al. (paragraph [0032] “The remotely located computer system 10 includes a server 18 having a processor, and a memory. The remotely located computer system 10 is in communication with a user computer system 22, to be described, using a communications network 20……The knowledge-based engineering library 12 may include information such as design, assembly and manufacturing rules and guidelines. The knowledge-based engineering library 12 may also contain data in electronic form regarding various types of vehicle subsystems”, Chen et al. paragraph [0035] “Solid modeling, for example, takes electronically stored vehicle model data from the model library 14a and standard component parts data from the knowledge-based engineering library 12 and builds complex geometry for part-to-part or full assembly analysis.”, Chen et al. paragraph [0036] “The parametric design technique is used in the electronic construction of geometry within the user computer system 22, for designing the vehicle 50 or a portion thereof. As a particular dimension or parameter is modified, the computer system 22 is instructed to regenerate a new geometry.”, Chen et al. paragraph [0043] “The base model 50 is preferably stored in a database, such as the previously described model library 14a for quicker direct mesh modeling, feature creation, and manipulation. In this example, the base model 50 is the design of a vehicle. Preferably, the base mesh model 50 is a geometric model for performing a CAE simulation to assess the geometric properties of the model, and the model is imported into the methodology.”, The examiner considers the solid modeling to be the functional model, since the solid modeling takes stored vehicle model data and standard component parts data and builds complex geometry for part-to-part or full assembly analysis. Also, the examiner considers the base model to be the structural model, since the base model is the design of the vehicle, where the geometric properties of the model can be assessed.)];
Limaiem et al. and Chen et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing a design within a virtual environment.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Limaiem et al. of receiving a first set of criteria comprising one or more criteria associated with components of the system by incorporating generating, by a computer-aided design application that executes a multi- objective solver via a processor, a system model comprising a structural model and a functional model; wherein the structural model specifies structural relationships between the plurality of components of the system based on the first set of criteria, and the functional model specifies functional relationships between the plurality of components of the system; iteratively optimizing, via the multi-objective solver, the structural relationships specified by the structural model and the functional relationships specified by the functional model to generate the design for the system comprising, at each iteration simultaneously adjusting geometry dimensions and material selection for each component in the plurality of components of the system based on a load associated with each component, the set of component-level criteria, and the set of system-level criteria of the first set of criteria as taught by Chen et al. for the purpose of generating mesh models of a design for use in a Computer-Aided Engineering (CAE) analysis.
Limaiem et al. in view of Chen et al. teaches generating, by a computer-aided design application that executes a multi- objective solver via a processor, a system model comprising a structural model and a functional model; wherein the structural model specifies structural relationships between the plurality of components of the system based on the first set of criteria, and the functional model specifies functional relationships between the plurality of components of the system; iteratively optimizing, via the multi-objective solver, the structural relationships specified by the structural model and the functional relationships specified by the functional model to generate the design for the system comprising, at each iteration simultaneously adjusting geometry dimensions and material selection for each component in the plurality of components of the system based on a load associated with each component, the set of component-level criteria, and the set of system-level criteria of the first set of criteria.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Chen et al. teaches that by generating mesh models of a design for use in a Computer-Aided Engineering (CAE) analysis, the ability to apply features of a design to a base model and generate a family of output meshes for further analysis can be accomplished. This allows a user to study multiple designs more efficiency (Chen et al. (paragraph [0012] – [0013])).
While the combination of Limaiem et al. and Chen et al. teaches a system model comprising a structural model and a functional model, Limaiem et al. and Chen et al. do not explicitly disclose “wherein the functional model specifies at least a first function that includes a transference of energy between two components of the system”
Schindler et al. discloses “wherein the functional model specifies at least a first function that includes a transference of energy between two components of the system” as [Schindler et al. (paragraph [0041] “The system can include a plurality of interconnected components (e.g., resources). The components can be, for instance, connected as a network with a plurality of connections and/or alternative energy pathways. Energy pathways can include possible paths (e.g., paths from a first component to a second component) of energy in the system from input into the system to output to energy consumers.”
Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing the connection of components of an object.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Limaiem et al. and Chen et al. of having a system model comprising a structural model and a functional model by incorporating wherein the functional model specifies at least a first function that includes a transference of energy between two components of the system as taught by Schindler et al. for the purpose of modeling energy conversion in systems.
Limaiem et al. in view of Chen et al. in further view of Schindler et al. teaches wherein the functional model specifies at least a first function that includes a transference of energy between two components of the system.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Schindler et al. teaches that by modeling energy conversion in systems, the ability to identify or select resources to meet the energy demand can be accomplished, which can reduce operational costs of a system (Schindler et al. paragraph [0003], paragraph [0008]).
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Limaiem et al. further discloses “wherein the system model is further generated based on one or more templates associated with at least one of taxonomic, structural, or functional aspects of the system” as [Limaiem et al. (Col. 4 lines 12-15 “As a particular dimension or parameter is modified for a particular feature of the instrument panel 50 or component part therein, the computer system 22 is instructed to regenerate a new geometric model.”, The examiner considers the parameter being modified for a particular feature to be the one or more templates, since the particular feature is a feature that has the instrument panel component part be distinguishes from other features)];
With respect to claim 11, Limaiem et al. discloses “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions that, when executed by a processor” as [Limaiem et al. (Col. 4 lines 26-27, “The computer system 22 includes a processor and a memory, etc.”, Col. 17 lines 2-5, “The stored instructions may be stored within the processing unit 1102 in the memory, or in any non-volatile storage such as magnetic or optical media, EPROM, EEPROM, or the like.”)];
The other limitations of the claim recite the same substantive limitations as claim 1 above, and are rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 15, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 5 above, and are rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 21, Limaiem et al. discloses “A computer system” as [Limaiem et al. (Col. 4 lines 24-26, “The tools 10 further include the computer system 22 as is known in the art to implement a method and system 20 for designing the instrument panel 50”)];
“one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors that are coupled to the one or more memories” as [Limaiem et al. (Col. 4 lines 24-27, “The tools 10 further include the computer system 22 as is known in the art to implement a method and system 20 for designing the instrument panel 50”, Col. 17 lines 2-5, “The stored instructions may be stored within the processing unit 1102 in the memory, or in any non-volatile storage such as magnetic or optical media, EPROM, EEPROM, or the like.”)];
The other limitations of the claim recite the same substantive limitations as claim 1 above, and are rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 22, the combination of Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. discloses the system of claim 21 above, and Limaiem et al. further discloses “wherein the computer system comprises a server machine” as [Limaiem et al. (Col. 17 lines 16-19, “The preferred embodiment may also include a printer 1114 connected to the processing unit 1102, as well as a network connection for accessing a local server, an intranet, and the Internet.”)];
With respect to claim 23, the combination of Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. discloses the system of claim 21 above, and Limaiem et al. further discloses “wherein the computer system comprises a user device” as [Limaiem et al. (Col. 4 lines 26-32, “The computer system 22 includes a processor and a memory 24a, which can provide a display and animation of a system, such as the instrument panel 50, on a display device such as a video terminal 24b. Parametric selection and control for the design can be achieved by a user 26, via a user interactive device 24c, such as a keyboard or a mouse.”)];
Claim(s) 6-7, 10, 16-17, 20, 25 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Limaiem et al. in view of Chen et al. in further view of Schindler et al. in further view of Weber et al. (U.S. Patent 7,133,812).
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. discloses the method of claim 5 above.
While the combination of Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. teaches generating a system model based on one or more templates associated with at least one of taxonomic, structural, or functional aspects of the system, Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. do not explicitly disclose “wherein generating the system model comprises updating the one or more templates based on the first set of criteria”
Weber et al. discloses “wherein generating the system model comprises updating the one or more templates based on the first set of criteria” as [Weber et al. Col. 4 lines 30-34 “As a particular dimension or parameter is modified for a particular feature of the instrument panel support structure, the computer system 22 is instructed to regenerate a new vehicle or part geometry.”)];
Limaiem et al., Chen et al., Schindler et al. and Weber et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing the connection of components of an object.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. of generating a system model based on one or more templates associated with at least one of taxonomic, structural, or functional aspects of the system by incorporating wherein generating the system model comprises updating the one or more templates based on the first set of criteria as taught by Weber et al. for the purpose of designing an instrument panel support structure for an instrument panel on a vehicle.
Limaiem et al. in view of Chen et al. in further view of Schindler et al. in further view of Weber et al. teaches wherein generating the system model comprises updating the one or more templates based on the first set of criteria.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Weber et al. teaches that by using a parametric design technique to design an instrument panel support structure, the related expenses for the design as well as the design time are reduced to allow the user to not only save when it comes to cost but also save time in designing (Weber et al. (Col. 2 lines 16-20, “One advantage of the present invention is that an improved method, etc.”)).
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above.
While the combination of Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. teaches receiving a first set of criteria comprising a set of component-level criteria associated with a plurality of components of the system, Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. does not explicitly disclose “wherein the first set of criteria further comprises at least one of design constraints or boundary conditions”
Weber et al. discloses “wherein the first set of criteria further comprises at least one of design constraints or boundary conditions” as [Weber et al. Col. 2 lines 9-12 “The method also includes the step of generating a design of the instrument panel support structure using the input parameter and determining if the design of the instrument panel support structure meets a predetermined criteria.”, Weber et al. Col. 10 lines 2-8 “In diamond 194, the design of the instrument panel support structure 100 is analyzed to determine if a predetermined design criteria, to be described, has been met. If the predetermined design criteria have not been met, the design is regenerated by modifying the inputs in blocks 164 and 166 based upon the information learned in diamond 194”)];
Limaiem et al., Chen et al., Schindler et al. and Weber et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing the connection of components of an object.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. of receiving a first set of criteria comprising a set of component-level criteria associated with a plurality of components of the system by incorporating wherein the first set of criteria further comprises at least one of design constraints or boundary conditions as taught by Weber et al. for the purpose of designing an instrument panel support structure for an instrument panel on a vehicle.
Limaiem et al. in view of Chen et al. in further view of Schindler et al. in further view of Weber et al. teaches wherein the first set of criteria further comprises at least one of design constraints or boundary conditions.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Weber et al. teaches that by using a parametric design technique to design an instrument panel support structure, the related expenses for the design as well as the design time are reduced to allow the user to not only save when it comes to cost but also save time in designing (Weber et al. (Col. 2 lines 16-20, “One advantage of the present invention is that an improved method, etc.”)).
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Limaiem et al., Chen et al., Schindler et al. and Weber et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above.
While the combination of Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. teaches receiving a first set of criteria comprising a set of component-level criteria associated with a plurality of components of the system, Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. does not explicitly disclose “receiving a second set of criteria; and updating the system model based on the second set of criteria”
Weber et al. discloses “receiving a second set of criteria” as [Weber et al. Col. 10 lines 2-8 “In diamond 194, the design of the instrument panel support structure 100 is analyzed to determine if a predetermined design criteria, to be described, has been met. If the predetermined design criteria have not been met, the design is regenerated by modifying the inputs in blocks 164 and 166 based upon the information learned in diamond 194”)];
“and updating the system model based on the second set of criteria.” as [Weber et al. Col. 10 lines 2-8 “In diamond 194, the design of the instrument panel support structure 100 is analyzed to determine if a predetermined design criteria, to be described, has been met. If the predetermined design criteria have not been met, the design is regenerated by modifying the inputs in blocks 164 and 166 based upon the information learned in diamond 194”)];
Limaiem et al., Chen et al., Schindler et al. and Weber et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing the connection of components of an object.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. of receiving a first set of criteria comprising a set of component-level criteria associated with a plurality of components of the system by incorporating receiving a second set of criteria; and updating the system model based on the second set of criteria as taught by Weber et al. for the purpose of designing an instrument panel support structure for an instrument panel on a vehicle.
Limaiem et al. in view of Chen et al. in further view of Schindler et al. in further view of Weber et al. teaches receiving a second set of criteria; and updating the system model based on the second set of criteria.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Weber et al. teaches that by using a parametric design technique to design an instrument panel support structure, the related expenses for the design as well as the design time are reduced to allow the user to not only save when it comes to cost but also save time in designing (Weber et al. (Col. 2 lines 16-20, “One advantage of the present invention is that an improved method, etc.”)).
With respect to claims 16-17 and 20, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as claims 6-7 and 10 above, and are rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 25, the combination of Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above.
While the combination of Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. teaches a functional model specifying at least a first function that includes a transference of energy between two components of the system, Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. do not explicitly disclose “wherein the first function includes a transference of at least one of force, torque, or heat between the two components of the system”
Weber et al. discloses “wherein the first function includes a transference of at least one of force, torque, or heat between the two components of the system” as [Weber et al. (Col. 6 lines 34-38 “The instrument panel support structure 100 also includes a knee bolster 126. The knee bolster absorbs energy of a portion of an occupant's body (not shown), such as a knee, under certain conditions. One example of a condition is the movement of an unrestrained occupant as a result of an impact with another object (not shown).”)];
Limaiem et al., Chen et al., Schindler et al. and Weber et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing the connection of components of an object.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. of having a functional model specifying at least a first function that includes a transference of energy between two components of the system by incorporating wherein the first function includes a transference of at least one of force, torque, or heat between the two components of the system as taught by Weber et al. for the purpose of designing an instrument panel support structure for an instrument panel on a vehicle.
Limaiem et al. in view of Chen et al. in further view of Schindler et al. in further view of Weber et al. teaches wherein the first function includes a transference of at least one of force, torque, or heat between the two components of the system.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Weber et al. teaches that by using a parametric design technique to design an instrument panel support structure, the related expenses for the design as well as the design time are reduced to allow the user to not only save when it comes to cost but also save time in designing (Weber et al. (Col. 2 lines 16-20, “One advantage of the present invention is that an improved method, etc.”)).
With respect to claim 28, the combination of Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above.
While the combination of Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. teaches a functional model specifying at least a first function that includes a transference of energy between two components of the system, Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. do not explicitly disclose “wherein iteratively optimizing the functional relationships specified by the functional model includes iteratively optimizing the first function that includes a transference of force or torque between the two components of the system”.
Weber et al. discloses “wherein iteratively optimizing the functional relationships specified by the functional model includes iteratively optimizing the first function that includes a transference of force or torque between the two components of the system.” as [Weber et al. (Col. 6 lines 34-38 “The instrument panel support structure 100 also includes a knee bolster 126. The knee bolster absorbs energy of a portion of an occupant's body (not shown), such as a knee, under certain conditions. One example of a condition is the movement of an unrestrained occupant as a result of an impact with another object (not shown).”)];
Limaiem et al., Chen et al., Schindler et al. and Weber et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing the connection of components of an object.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. of having a functional model specifying at least a first function that includes a transference of energy between two components of the system by incorporating wherein iteratively optimizing the functional relationships specified by the functional model includes iteratively optimizing the first function that includes a transference of force or torque between the two components of the system as taught by Weber et al. for the purpose of designing an instrument panel support structure for an instrument panel on a vehicle.
Limaiem et al. in view of Chen et al. in further view of Schindler et al. in further view of Weber et al. teaches wherein iteratively optimizing the functional relationships specified by the functional model includes iteratively optimizing the first function that includes a transference of force or torque between the two components of the system.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Weber et al. teaches that by using a parametric design technique to design an instrument panel support structure, the related expenses for the design as well as the design time are reduced to allow the user to not only save when it comes to cost but also save time in designing (Weber et al. (Col. 2 lines 16-20, “One advantage of the present invention is that an improved method, etc.”)).
Claim(s) 2-3, 8, 12-13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Limaiem et al. in view of Chen et al. in further view of Schindler et al. in further view of Suh et al. (U.S. Patent 7,295,958) (from IDS dated 11/25/20).
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above.
While the combination of Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. teaches optimizing the system model to generate the design for the system, Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. does not explicitly disclose “wherein generating the design of the system further comprises performing one or more topology generation operations based on the first set of criteria.”
Suh et al. discloses “wherein generating the design of the system further comprises performing one or more topology generation operations based on the first set of criteria” as [Suh et al. (Col. 3 lines 55-58, “The FR stored within the knowledge database is associated with a functional geometric feature (FGF), which is also stored within the knowledge database.”, Suh et al. Col. 8 lines 49-52, “Each set of FRs is associated with a topology described in association with step 116. Each topology is processed at step 118 of FIG. 1 to provide an associated final shape, also referred to herein as a physical part.”)];
Limaiem et al., Chen et al., Schindler et al. and Suh et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing components within a virtual environment.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. of optimizing the system model to generate the design for the system by incorporating wherein generating the design of the system further comprises performing one or more topology generation operations based on the first set of criteria as taught by Suh et al. for the purpose of generating a design solution in response to a set of functional requirements.
Limaiem et al. in view of Chen et al. in further view of Schindler et al. in further view of Suh et al. teaches wherein generating the design of the system further comprises performing one or more topology generation operations based on the first set of criteria.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Suh et al. teaches that by generating a design solution in response to a set of functional requirements, the ability to develop automate machining to diagnose the defect of geometric models can be accomplished (Suh et al. (Col. 2 lines 16-22, “Feature-based representation or design is a result, etc.”)).
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Limaiem et al., Chen et al., Schindler et al. and Suh et al. discloses the method of claim 2 above and Suh et al. further discloses “adjusting at least one of connectivity between the components, disposition of the components relative to each other, or materials of the components based on the first set of criteria.” as [Suh et al. (Col. 6 lines 19-25, “FGFs correspond to physical objects, which can be parts of an assembly. Essentially, the FGFs, mapped to the leaf level DPs, are physical objects that satisfy the corresponding leaf level FRs, DPs, and GEs. An FGF is a physical object, and can be associated with a text description (also referred to herein as a text model) having a predetermined text structure.”, Col. 29 lines 50-55, “This process is related to a change of dimensions of each FGF to satisfy the corresponding FR. The change of dimensions may result in a decoupled design matrix to guarantee satisfaction of all the FRs as explained above in connection with the hanger design example.”)];
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above.
While the combination of Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. teaches receiving a first set of criteria comprising a set of component-level criteria and a set of system-level criteria of the system, Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. do not explicitly disclose “wherein the set of component’-level criteria comprises at least one of a force exerted by one of the components on another of the components, a type of connection between two of the components, or a distance between two of the components”
Suh et al. discloses “wherein the set of component-level criteria comprises at least one of a force exerted by one of the components on another of the components, a type of connection between two of the components, or a distance between two of the components” as [Suh et al. (Col. 15 lines 59-63, “In one embodiment, the combining of FGFs can be performed via a genetic algorithm (GA) and geometric interface-ability can be checked by an algorithm which simulates assembly operations to integrate the FGFs into a physical space.”)];
Limaiem et al., Chen et al., Schindler et al. and Suh et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing components within a virtual environment.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. of receiving a first set of criteria comprising a set of component-level criteria and a set of system-level criteria of the system by incorporating wherein the set of component-level criteria comprises at least one of a force exerted by one of the components on another of the components, a type of connection between two of the components, or a distance between two of the components as taught by Suh et al. for the purpose of generating a design solution in response to a set of functional requirements.
Limaiem et al. in view of Chen et al. in further view of Schindler et al. in further view of Suh et al. teaches wherein the set of component-level criteria comprises at least one of a force exerted by one of the components on another of the components, a type of connection between two of the components, or a distance between two of the components.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Suh et al. teaches that by generating a design solution in response to a set of functional requirements, the ability to develop automate machining to diagnose the defect of geometric models can be accomplished (Suh et al. (Col. 2 lines 16-22, “Feature-based representation or design is a result, etc.”)).
With respect to claims 12-13 and 18, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as claims 2-3 and 8 above, and are rejected using the same teachings.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Limaiem et al. in view of Chen et al. in further view of Schindler et al. in further view of Kanthasamy et al. (U.S. Patent 10,013,510) (from IDS dated 11/25/20).
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above.
While the combination of Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. teaches receiving a first set of criteria comprising a set of component-level criteria and a set of system-level criteria of the system, Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. do not explicitly disclose “wherein the set system- level criteria comprises at least one of a total mass of the system or a total cost of the system”
Kanthasamy et al. discloses “wherein the set system- level criteria comprises at least one of a total mass of the system or a total cost of the system” as [Kanthasamy et al. (Col. 22 lines 57-62, “As the general rules may be defined to be used for checking the model validity against general domain modeling principles, the modeling case-specific rules may restrict some physically meaningful features, such as a maximum value for the body mass or the number of individual bodies in the model.”)];
Limaiem et al., Chen et al., Schindler et al. and Kanthasamy et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing components within a virtual environment.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Limaiem et al., Chen et al. and Schindler et al. of receiving a first set of criteria comprising a set of component-level criteria and a set of system-level criteria of the system by incorporating wherein the set system- level criteria comprises at least one of a total mass of the system or a total cost of the system as taught by Kanthasamy et al. for the purpose of analyzing artificial intelligence rules in computer aided engineering (CAE) programs.
Limaiem et al. in view of Chen et al. in further view of Schindler et al. in further view of Kanthasamy et al. teaches wherein the set system- level criteria comprises at least one of a total mass of the system or a total cost of the system.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Suh et al. teaches that by generating a design solution in response to a set of functional requirements, the ability to develop automate machining to diagnose the defect of geometric models can be accomplished (Suh et al. (Col. 2 lines 16-22, “Feature-based representation or design is a result, etc.”)).
With respect to claim 19, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 9 above, and is rejected using the same teachings.
Conclusion
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 BERNARD E COTHRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5594. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -5:30PM EST M-F.
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 F 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.
/BERNARD E COTHRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188