Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is responsive to the applicant’s correspondence filed on 10/23/2025.
Claims 1-27 are pending. Claims 1 and 10-27 are amended. Claim 7 is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim objections:
The objection has been withdrawn in view of amendments.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC § 112:
The rejection has been withdrawn in view of amendments.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC § 101:
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the remarks, page 10-11, regarding Step 2A Prong 1, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
To clarify, under Step 2A Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea if it recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(II). As explained in the 101 rejection, claim 1 recites abstract ideas, namely “generate a flex modeling spectrum informed by the CAD model and the required simulation attributes, the flex modeling spectrum comprising a plurality of computational domains, each computational domain within a spectrum between a fully body-fitted mesh and a fully immersed model” and “generate an envelope CAD domain from the flex modeling spectrum and construct a spline representation of the envelope CAD domain.”
With respect to the remarks, page 11, regarding the limitation “generate a flex modeling spectrum informed by the CAD model and the required simulation attributes,” the limitation amounts to an abstract idea if it recites an abstract idea but for the recitation of a computer. Merely performing an otherwise abstract idea on a computer does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, this limitation amounts to an abstract idea.
With respect to the remarks, page 11, regarding the limitation “generate an envelope CAD domain from the flex modeling spectrum and construct a spline representation of the envelope CAD domain,” Examiner notes MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2): “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)” See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). In this case, generation of envelope CAD domain and construction of a spline representation involve mathematical calculations, formulas/equations, or relationships as disclosed in specification, even if they are not expressed in mathematical symbols. See the 101 rejection below for more detail.
With respect to the remarks, page 12, regarding additional elements, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
To clarify, the limitations of processing data and generating CAE simulation results are generically recited that they amount to using a generic computer. Such activities do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding rejections under 35 USC § 102:
The 102 rejection has been withdrawn and the 103 rejection has been updated in view of amendments.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments based on the newly amended subject matter, all arguments are addressed in the updated 103 rejection of the claims below.
Regarding the limitations “setting one or more required simulation attributes on features of the CAD model”; “a flex modeling spectrum”; “generating an envelope CAD domain from the flex modeling spectrum and constructing a spline representation of the envelope CAD domain”; “processing the data provided by the CAD model and the data provided by the envelope CAD domain and producing an FRM model, the FRM model being a combined data structure that incorporates the CAD model, the required simulation attributes, and the envelope CAD domain”; “generating CAE simulation results using the FRM model”; and “outputting the generated CAE simulation results on the FRM model in a view that details a relationship between the simulation results and the CAD model”, Applicant’s arguments are conclusory. The remarks merely alleges that Schmitter does not disclose these limitations without explanation. Therefore, these limitations are taught as explained in the 103 rejection below.
Regarding the envelope domain on page 13 of the remarks, specification para [0021] discloses that envelope domains are constructed from spline representations. Schmitter discloses representing the model using spline representations. Therefore, Schmitter discloses this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 and 8-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: Claims 1-6, 8, and 9 are directed to a system, which is a device, falling under a statutory category of invention. Claims 10-18 are directed to a method, which is a process, falling under a statutory category of invention. Claim 19-27 is directed to a computer program product, which is a manufacture, falling under a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-6 and 8-27 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: The following limitations recite abstract ideas:
As per MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2): “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)” See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
The limitations “generate a flex modeling spectrum informed by the CAD model and the required simulation attributes, the flex modeling spectrum comprising a plurality of computational domains, each computational domain within a spectrum between a fully body-fitted mesh and a fully immersed model” and “calculating a result” under broadest reasonable interpretation cover mathematical concepts. According to specification, generating a flex modeling spectrum amounts to generating meshes with different level of detail ([0103]: “To simplify the construction of a U-spline basis, we define a class of admissible Bézier meshes, which we call U-spline meshes and denote by U. A U-spline mesh is a Bézier mesh with admissibility constraints placed on the layout of cells, the degree, and the smoothness of interfaces. Admissibility constraints are imposed through appropriate separation and grading conditions on degree and continuity transitions throughout the Bézier mesh. The mathematical properties of the corresponding admissible U-spline space u can be controlled a priori by specifying the properties of the underlying Bézier mesh topology.”). Specification pages 17- 26 discloses mathematical formulas/equations, calculations, and/or relationships involved in the generation of a mesh. Specification para [0110] also discloses that the mesh is generated using a mesh generation algorithm ([0110]: “A mesh generation algorithm is then used to create a piecewise d-linear approximation to m[
PNG
media_image1.png
46
33
media_image1.png
Greyscale
], denoted by m[Δ], where Δ denotes the underlying mesh.”). Therefore, generation of a mesh amounts to a mathematical concept. Therefore, generating/modifying a flex modeling spectrum amounts to a mathematical concept.
The limitation “generate an envelope CAD domain from the flex modeling spectrum and construct a spline representation of the envelope CAD domain” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers mathematical concepts. Specification at [0021] discloses that envelope domains are constructed from spline representations that are mathematically formulated to be used as the basis for design and simulation. Specification pages 13 and 17-19 disclose mathematical calculations and equations for constructing a U-spline. Pages 20-21 also discloses mathematical calculations and equations for constructing a U-spline for a CAD model. Therefore, constructing a spline representation covers mathematical concepts.
Step 2A Prong 2: The following limitations recite additional elements:
“one or more computer processors”
“computer readable memory having stored therein computer-executable instructions which, when executed by the one or more computer processors”
“import or construct a CAD model, the CAD model including trimmed CAD features and/or features defined by implicit function data”
“set one or more required simulation attributes on features of the CAD model”
“process the data provided by the CAD model and the data provided by the envelope CAD domain and produce an FRM model, the FRM model being a combined data structure that incorporates the CAD model, the required simulation attributes, and the envelope CAD domain such that the CAD model geometry including all CAD features is preserved”
“generate CAE simulation results using the FRM model”
“output the generated CAE simulation results on the FRM model in a view that details a relationship between the simulation results and the CAD model”
“enable a user to extend or modify the flex modeling spectrum using the results of a previous simulation, enabling the user to extend or modify comprising receiving user input”
“storing the result in durable data storage for further application in CAD, CAE, or CAM”
However, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements “one or more computer processors” and “computer readable memory having stored therein computer-executable instructions which, when executed by the one or more computer processors” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element “import or construct a CAD model, the CAD model including trimmed CAD features and/or features defined by implicit function data” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is a data gathering activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional element “set one or more required simulation attributes on features of the CAD model” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Specification at [0242] discloses: “Setting one or more simulation attributes on the CAD model may also include an interactive process wherein input is received by a computing system from a user, such as an engineer or an analyst. … Setting the simulation attributes may also include storing data in a data structure that identifies and defines the simulation attributes.” Therefore, setting an attribute for a CAD model involves using generic computer functions such as receiving input data and storing the data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element “process the data provided by the CAD model and the data provided by the envelope CAD domain and produce an FRM model, the FRM model being a combined data structure that incorporates the CAD model, the required simulation attributes, and the envelope CAD domain such that the CAD model geometry including all CAD features is preserved” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Processing data is a generic computer function. Combining data into a data structure is also a generic computer function. Producing a FRM model therefore also amounts to using generic computer functions. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element “generate CAE simulation results using the FRM model” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Generating CAE simulation results is recited generically that it could be performed by running a generic CAE software on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element “output the generated CAE simulation results on the FRM model in a view that details a relationship between the simulation results and the CAD model” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Specifically, this is a post-solution activity of outputting a result. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional element “enable a user to extend or modify the flex modeling spectrum using the results of a previous simulation, enabling the user to extend or modify comprising receiving user input” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional element “storing the result in durable data storage for further application in CAD, CAE, or CAM” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. For example, this amounts to a post-solution activity of merely storing a result in a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(g).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional elements “one or more computer processors”; “computer readable memory having stored therein computer-executable instructions which, when executed by the one or more computer processors”; “set one or more required simulation attributes on features of the CAD model”; “process the data provided by the CAD model and the data provided by the envelope CAD domain and produce an FRM model, the FRM model being a combined data structure that incorporates the CAD model, the required simulation attributes, and the envelope CAD domain such that the CAD model geometry including all CAD features is preserved”; and “generate CAE simulation results using the FRM model” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements “import or construct a CAD model, the CAD model including trimmed CAD features and/or features defined by implicit function data” and “enable a user to extend or modify the flex modeling spectrum using the results of a previous simulation, enabling the user to extend or modify comprising receiving user input” are data gathering activities that are akin to a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. Such activities do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added))”.
The additional element “output the generated CAE simulation results on the FRM model in a view that details a relationship between the simulation results and the CAD model” is an insignificant extra-solution activity that is akin to a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of presenting offers and gathering statistics. Such activities do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”.
The additional element “storing the result in durable data storage for further application in CAD, CAE, or CAM” is an insignificant extra-solution activity that is akin to a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. Such activities do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”. This also amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible.
Regarding claims 2 and 3: Claim 2 and 3 merely further limit the spline representation recited in claim 1. Accordingly, the same analysis used in claim 1 is applicable.
Therefore, claims 2 and 3 are not eligible.
Regarding claims 4-6: Claims 4-6 merely further limit the envelope CAD domain recited in claim 1. Accordingly, the same analysis used in claim 1 is applicable.
Therefore, claims 4-6 are not eligible.
Regarding claim 8:
The limitation “storing the simulation results in durable computer-readable data storage” is an additional element.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element “storing the simulation results in durable computer-readable data storage” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Storing data is a generic computer function. See MPEP 2106.05(f). It also amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity. Specifically, this is a post-solution activity of merely storing the result of a simulation in a memory/storage. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Even when viewed in combination, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional element “storing the simulation results in durable computer-readable data storage” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). It also amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity that falls under storing and retrieving information in memory. Such activities do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 8 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 9:
The limitation “displaying the simulation results on a display device” is an additional element.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element “displaying the simulation results on a display device does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Specifically, this is a post-solution activity of merely displaying the result of a simulation on a display device. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Even when viewed in combination, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional element “displaying the simulation results on a display device” an insignificant extra-solution activity that falls under presenting offers and gathering statistics. Such activities do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 9 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 16:
The limitation “the envelope CAD domain is selected based on an improvement in accuracy and robustness of the generated CAE simulation results” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, selecting an envelope CAD domain according to an improvement in accuracy and robustness covers someone mentally observing the accuracy and robustness changes for an envelope CAD domain and mentally picking one that satisfies the criteria.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that would have provided practical application of or have added significantly more to the cited abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 16 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 19: Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 1. Therefore, the similar analysis as claim 1 is applicable.
In addition, the limitation “one or more computer readable storage devices having encoded therein computer-executable instructions” is an additional element.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element “one or more computer readable storage devices having encoded therein computer-executable instructions” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. A computer readable storage device is a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional element “one or more computer readable storage devices having encoded therein computer-executable instructions” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 19 is not eligible.
Claims 10-15, 17-18, and 20-27 are substantially similar to claims 1-6, 8-9, and 16. Therefore, they are rejected for the similar reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8-10, 13-19, and 22-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitter et al. (US20190251218A1), hereinafter Schmitter, in view of Hsu et al. (“Direct immersogeometric fluid flow analysis using B-rep CAD models”), hereinafter Hsu.
Regarding claim 1, Schmitter discloses
one or more computer processors ([0019]: “Moreover, according to another aspect, a computer system having a hardware processor, a display, memory, and possibly a graphics processing unit (GPU) is provided”); and
computer readable memory having stored therein computer-executable instructions which, when executed by the one or more computer processors ([0019]: “Moreover, according to another aspect, a computer system having a hardware processor, a display, memory, and possibly a graphics processing unit (GPU) is provided”), configures the system to:
import or construct a CAD model ([0066]: “In a first step a CAD model is designed, before having analyzed or simulated any physical properties of the CAD model.”);
set one or more required simulation attributes on features of the CAD model ([0013]: “The final mesh needs to fulfill several important criteria regarding its structure, level of detail, size of elements and overall mesh quality, for example to ensure that a surface or volume does not contain any holes, and that the smoothness of curves, edges or corners corresponds to the desired accuracy.”) ([0088]: “The subsequently generated data is sent to a tolerance-measure unit TMU that evaluates an approximation error, which for example is computed based on the difference between the solutions obtained with two subsequent resolutions or which is based on physical criteria such as for example, but not limited to, the spatial resolution that can be described with the current refinement level or any other physically-based criterion such as temperature, weight, pressure, velocities or acceleration, electric current, magnetic fields, stress-related quantities, etc.”) ([0066]: “Then the CAD model that is converted to a PPS, which allows to simulate physical properties … In a further step S220, adaptive refinement of the IGA is carried out to improve the accuracy of the computation and simulation of the physical properties.”) ([0063]: “In this step, the PPS is required to define the shape where the IGA should be performed on.”) ([0090]: “The specification of the H-spline based ASG is executed by specification of the digital geometry representation 15, 17 through user interaction for example by 23 or 25. For example, this can be done by dragging and displacing H-spline related parameters, such as control points or sampling rate with input device 23, 25 and by global or local refinement computed through data processing device 20, or automatically or user-defined, such as by specifying mesh parameter values with keyboard 24, and then displaying the interactively defined or modified or semi-automatically or automatically generated ASG on display 22 while performing interaction with an input device 23, 25.”);
generate a flex modeling spectrum informed by the CAD model and the required simulation attributes ([0063]: “In this step, the PPS is required to define the shape where the IGA should be performed on.”) ([0066]: “In a further step S220, adaptive refinement of the IGA is carried out to improve the accuracy of the computation and simulation of the physical properties. This step also increases the resolution of the ASG and hence, of the PPS. This leads to a more precise solution of the IGA, to obtain a more refined SSF.”) ([0073]: “Moreover, with the features discussed herein, it is possible to provide for a data processing environment that allows to convert object data, for example CAD model data, from the pre-existing CAD, CAE, and CAM world, and other software environment for finite element analysis, into the world of H-spline, as defined in U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0357736, presenting the advantages of the easy creation of watertight boundaries between two different objects or surfaces, the direct and possibly interactive control of higher-order derivatives of shapes, and the possibility of refining of surfaces and objects to a higher mesh resolution.”) ([0087]: “The computation performed by data processing device 20 possibly includes modifying or changing the resolution, refinement and possibly sampling rate of the IGA solution and the H-spline based CAD representation. Data processing device 20 executes this task by re-computing the solutions with different precision depending on the value of the refinement factor m.”) ([0088]: “The subsequently generated data is sent to a tolerance-measure unit TMU that evaluates an approximation error, which for example is computed based on the difference between the solutions obtained with two subsequent resolutions or which is based on physical criteria such as for example, but not limited to, the spatial resolution that can be described with the current refinement level or any other physically-based criterion such as temperature, weight, pressure, velocities or acceleration, electric current, magnetic fields, stress-related quantities, etc.”);
generate an envelope CAD domain from the flex modeling spectrum and construct a spline representation of the envelope CAD domain ([0064]: “Next, a substep S140 receives data from PPS, K, and F, in the H-spline representation, and computes adaptive refinement of K and F, thereby iteratively refining the IGA solution and the ASG with an equivalent refinement step, to calculate a solution surface (SSF). The SSF data is output, which can also describe a volume enclosed by a surface because any volume can be described by the surface that encloses it.”) ([0069]: “As explained above with respect to FIG. 1, an analysis suitable geometry (ASG) is extracted from an existing CAD object defined as an H-spline surface or volume by substep S100 of method 500. With this substep S100, the complete geometry of the CAD object is entirely defined by the discrete set of the H-spline control points. They allow for further digital refinement in the IGA process without changing the geometry.”) ([0073]: “Moreover, with the features discussed herein, it is possible to provide for a data processing environment that allows to convert object data, for example CAD model data, from the pre-existing CAD, CAE, and CAM world, and other software environment for finite element analysis, into the world of H-spline, as defined in U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0357736, presenting the advantages of the easy creation of watertight boundaries between two different objects or surfaces, the direct and possibly interactive control of higher-order derivatives of shapes, and the possibility of refining of surfaces and objects to a higher mesh resolution.”) ([0087]: “The computation performed by data processing device 20 possibly includes modifying or changing the resolution, refinement and possibly sampling rate of the IGA solution and the H-spline based CAD representation. Data processing device 20 executes this task by re-computing the solutions with different precision depending on the value of the refinement factor m.”) ([0055]: “Moreover, H-splines allow for performing a direct surface control of the displayed graphical elements such as higher order derivatives.”) ([0037]: “H-splines allow to construct interpolatory surfaces that are at least in C1 or possibly have smoothness properties of arbitrary high order.”);
Examiner notes that Schmitter discloses modifying or changing the resolution of the solution model based on physical criteria or the level of detail required for the CAE simulation. This shows that there is a flexibility for choosing the level of detail when generating the envelop CAD domain. Therefore, this corresponds to determining a flex modeling spectrum informed by the CAD model and the required simulation attributes and generating an envelope CAD domain from the flex modeling spectrum. Examiner also notes that Schmitter discloses using a higher-order spline which allows generating a more detailed boundary. This also shows that one can choose the level of detail of the envelop CAD domain by choosing the order of the spline. Therefore, this also corresponds to determining and modeling according to a flex modeling spectrum.
process the data provided by the CAD model and the data provided by the envelope CAD domain and produce an FRM model, the FRM model being a combined data structure that incorporates the CAD model, the required simulation attributes, and the envelope CAD domain such that the CAD model geometry including all CAD features is preserved ([0074]: “FIG. 3 shows a schematic exemplary representation of the substep S110 of the IGA computation step S100 of method 500 that converts a connectivity array CA that represents the H-spline based CAD data into an H-spline patch-based parameterized surface PPS. The connectivity array CA includes all the essential information needed to describe and represent an H-spline based shape, as well the connection between neighboring control points CP”) ([0076]: “All the surfaces meshes SMi can be generated in parallel and unified to represent the patch-based parameterized surface PPS, which is the output of step S110”) ([0088]: “Then the solution surface SSF is output to step S200 of method 500, for example steps of method 1500 for providing manufacture ready data in a step S240, for data processing by commercial CAD/CAE/CAM software”);
Examiner notes that the FRM model as recited in the claim simply refers to a combination of the data of the CAD model, the data of the required simulation attributes, and the data of the generated envelop CAD domain. In Schmitter, these data are output and transmitted to the next step to perform CAE simulation on them.
generate CAE simulation results using the FRM model ([0065]: “Next, in a step S210, an H-spline compatible IGA is executed to analyze and simulate physical properties of the PPS, for example but not limited to aerodynamic characteristics, strength-related characteristics, physical resistance to mechanical forces due to stress, weight, temperature, or loads. In such a context, the surface that is originally described by a CAD model and which describes a device 90 that is to be manufactured or modified is represented as a PPS to be suitable for IGA.”); and
output the generated CAE simulation results on the FRM model in a view that details a relationship between the simulation results and the CAD model ([0088]: “Then the solution surface SSF is output to step S200 of method 500, for example steps of method 1500 for providing manufacture ready data in a step S240, for data processing by commercial CAD/CAE/CAM software”) ([0073]: “With the help of parallel and fast graphics processing, this conversion from CAD model data to H-spline and back can be done in real-time, such that the object data of the CAD model and H-spline model can be visualized simultaneously on a display screen 22.”); and
enable a user to extend or modify the flex modeling spectrum using the results of a previous simulation, enabling the user to extend or modify comprising receiving user input, calculating a result, and storing the result in durable data storage for further application in CAD, CAE, or CAM ([0092]: “Display device 22 can display different stages and results of the data processing steps of the method 500, 1500, and is also capable of displaying 2D or 3D images to represent results and processing steps of the method. For example, the graphical user interface 27 can be shown, that is displaying the H-spline based ASG generated based on an H-spline based CAD model, and the shapes and appearance of possible ASG models 15, 17 can be changed directly and in real-time via the data input devices 23, 24, 25. This allows performing the direct surface control described above using H-splines.”) ([0064]: “Next, a substep S140 receives data from PPS, K, and F, in the H-spline representation, and computes adaptive refinement of K and F, thereby iteratively refining the IGA solution and the ASG with an equivalent refinement step, to calculate a solution surface (SSF).”) ([0088]: “This loop is executed iteratively until a tolerance value is reached, typically until the solution after a new refinement step does no longer significantly change from one iteration to another or if a certain number of iterations has been reached.”) ([0089]: “The user can control and specify the ASG with an input device such as 22, 23, 24, 25, to generate a graphical element computed with data processing device 20 and shown in display 22.”) ([0090]: “The specification of the H-spline based ASG is executed by specification of the digital geometry representation 15, 17 through user interaction for example by 23 or 25. For example, this can be done by dragging and displacing H-spline related parameters, such as control points or sampling rate with input device 23, 25 and by global or local refinement computed through data processing device 20, or automatically or user-defined, such as by specifying mesh parameter values with keyboard 24, and then displaying the interactively defined or modified or semi-automatically or automatically generated ASG on display 22 while performing interaction with an input device 23, 25.”) ([0017]: “Preferably, the computer device configured to create an analysis suitable geometry (ASG) using H-splines from the geometric object, the geometric object being represented by H-splines, store the analysis suitable geometry (ASG) in the memory of the computer device”).
Schmitter does not explicitly disclose
the CAD model including trimmed CAD features and/or features defined by implicit function data; and
a fully body-fitted model and a fully immersed model.
However, Hsu teaches
the CAD model including trimmed CAD features (Pg. 145: “The boundary of solid models created using CAD systems is usually represented using multiple trimmed NURBS sur-faces. … In our method, we directly make use of the trimmed-NURBS surfaces without tessellating them.”) (Pg. 148: “Fig. 3. Example surface represented using trimmed NURBS.”); and
a fully body-fitted model and a fully immersed model (Pg. 143: “We present a new method for immersogeometric fluid flow analysis that directly uses the CAD boundary representation (B-rep) of a complex object and immerses it into a locally refined, non-boundary-fitted discretization of the fluid domain.”) (Pg. 144: “Generating a high-quality boundary-fitted fluid mesh requires intense manipulation of the surface mesh.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Hsu on trimmed CAD model with the teachings from Schmitter on the imported or constructed CAD model. The motivation to combine would have been that doing so allows more flexibly representing surfaces with holes or complex geometries (Hsu, Pg. 148: “Representing B-rep faces using traditional NURBS surfaces restricts them to topologically rectangular sheets; they are not very flexible, especially when it comes to representing surfaces that are not rectangular or those with holes or complex local geometries that arise due to Boolean operations. Therefore, the NURBS patches are trimmed, discarding a portion of the surface defined in the parametric domain.”).
Examiner notes that Schmitter teaches flexibly choosing the level of detail they want by adjusting the degree of the spline polynomial. Hsu teaches two extremes of the model, a fully body-fitted model and a fully immersed model. Combining the teachings from the two references, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to generate an envelope domain spectrum from a fully body-fitted model to a fully immersed model, adjusting the level of detail. The motivation to combine would have been that a fully body-fitted model allows generating a high-quality model while requiring intense manual work and a fully immersed model allows avoiding such challenges while demonstrating effective, comparable results (Hsu, Pg. 144: “Generating a high-quality boundary-fitted fluid mesh requires intense manipulation of the surface mesh.”) (Hsu, Pg. 143: “We present a new method for immersogeometric fluid flow analysis that directly uses the CAD boundary representation (B-rep) of a complex object and immerses it into a locally refined, non-boundary-fitted discretization of the fluid domain. The motivating applications include analyzing the flow over complex geometries, such as moving vehicles, where the detailed geometric features usually require time-consuming, labor-intensive geometry cleanup or mesh manipulation for generating the surrounding boundary-fitted fluid mesh. The proposed method avoids the challenges associated with such procedures.”) (Hsu, Pg. 147: “However, it was shown inXu et al. (2016) that accurate laminar and turbulent flow solutions were obtained using the immersogeometric method with a mesh resolution and refinement pattern comparable to the boundary-fitted mesh used to obtain the reference values.”) (Hsu, Pg. 156: “Finally, we demonstrated the effectiveness of our immersogeometric method for industrial scale simulations by performing an aerodynamic analysis of an agricultural tractor directly represented using B-rep.”).
Therefore, the combination of Schmitter and Hsu teaches
the CAD model including trimmed CAD features and/or features defined by implicit function data (Schmitter, [0066]: “In a first step a CAD model is designed, before having analyzed or simulated any physical properties of the CAD model.”) (Hsu, Pg. 145: “The boundary of solid models created using CAD systems is usually represented using multiple trimmed NURBS sur-faces. … In our method, we directly make use of the trimmed-NURBS surfaces without tessellating them.”) (Hsu, Pg. 148: “Fig. 3. Example surface represented using trimmed NURBS.”); and
the flex modeling spectrum comprising a plurality of computational domains, each computational domain within a spectrum between a fully body-fitted mesh and a fully immersed model (Schmitter, [0063]: “In this step, the PPS is required to define the shape where the IGA should be performed on.”) (Schmitter, [0066]: “In a further step S220, adaptive refinement of the IGA is carried out to improve the accuracy of the computation and simulation of the physical properties. This step also increases the resolution of the ASG and hence, of the PPS. This leads to a more precise solution of the IGA, to obtain a more refined SSF.”) (Schmitter, [0073]: “Moreover, with the features discussed herein, it is possible to provide for a data processing environment that allows to convert object data, for example CAD model data, from the pre-existing CAD, CAE, and CAM world, and other software environment for finite element analysis, into the world of H-spline, as defined in U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0357736, presenting the advantages of the easy creation of watertight boundaries between two different objects or surfaces, the direct and possibly interactive control of higher-order derivatives of shapes, and the possibility of refining of surfaces and objects to a higher mesh resolution.”) (Schmitter, [0087]: “The computation performed by data processing device 20 possibly includes modifying or changing the resolution, refinement and possibly sampling rate of the IGA solution and the H-spline based CAD representation. Data processing device 20 executes this task by re-computing the solutions with different precision depending on the value of the refinement factor m.”) (Schmitter, [0088]: “The subsequently generated data is sent to a tolerance-measure unit TMU that evaluates an approximation error, which for example is computed based on the difference between the solutions obtained with two subsequent resolutions or which is based on physical criteria such as for example, but not limited to, the spatial resolution that can be described with the current refinement level or any other physically-based criterion such as temperature, weight, pressure, velocities or acceleration, electric current, magnetic fields, stress-related quantities, etc.”) (Hsu, Pg. 143: “We present a new method for immersogeometric fluid flow analysis that directly uses the CAD boundary representation (B-rep) of a complex object and immerses it into a locally refined, non-boundary-fitted discretization of the fluid domain.”) (Hsu, Pg. 144: “Generating a high-quality boundary-fitted fluid mesh requires intense manipulation of the surface mesh.”).
Regarding claim 4, Schmitter/Hsu teaches
the envelope CAD domain approximates all geometric features of the CAD model (Schmitter, [0063]: “In this step, the PPS is required to define the shape where the IGA should be performed on.”) (Schmitter, [0066]: “In a further step S220, adaptive refinement of the IGA is carried out to improve the accuracy of the computation and simulation of the physical properties. This step also increases the resolution of the ASG and hence, of the PPS. This leads to a more precise solution of the IGA, to obtain a more refined SSF.”) (Schmitter, [0073]: “Moreover, with the features discussed herein, it is possible to provide for a data processing environment that allows to convert object data, for example CAD model data, from the pre-existing CAD, CAE, and CAM world, and other software environment for finite element analysis, into the world of H-spline, as defined in U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0357736, presenting the advantages of the easy creation of watertight boundaries between two different objects or surfaces, the direct and possibly interactive control of higher-order derivatives of shapes, and the possibility of refining of surfaces and objects to a higher mesh resolution.”) (Schmitter, [0087]: “The computation performed by data processing device 20 possibly includes modifying or changing the resolution, refinement and possibly sampling rate of the IGA solution and the H-spline based CAD representation. Data processing device 20 executes this task by re-computing the solutions with different precision depending on the value of the refinement factor m.”) (Schmitter, [0088]: “The subsequently generated data is sent to a tolerance-measure unit TMU that evaluates an approximation error, which for example is computed based on the difference between the solutions obtained with two subsequent resolutions or which is based on physical criteria such as for example, but not limited to, the spatial resolution that can be described with the current refinement level or any other physically-based criterion such as temperature, weight, pressure, velocities or acceleration, electric current, magnetic fields, stress-related quantities, etc.”) (Schmitter, [0022]: “Preferably, the method comprising the steps of computing and matching the refinement level of the digital IGA representation to the refinement of the digital CAD model”).
Examiner notes that as explained in claim 1, Schmitter discloses choosing the amount of detail represented in the envelope CAD domain according to the physical criteria or the level of detail required for the CAE simulation. In addition, Schmitter discloses matching the refinement level of the analysis suitable geometry to the refinement level of the geometric object. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to approximate all geometric features of the CAD model from the disclosure of Schmitter.
Regarding claim 5, Schmitter/Hsu teaches
the envelope CAD domain approximates one or more geometric features of the CAD model (Schmitter, [0063]: “In this step, the PPS is required to define the shape where the IGA should be performed on.”) (Schmitter, [0066]: “In a further step S220, adaptive refinement of the IGA is carried out to improve the accuracy of the computation and simulation of the physical properties. This step also increases the resolution of the ASG and hence, of the PPS. This leads to a more precise solution of the IGA, to obtain a more refined SSF.”) (Schmitter, [0073]: “Moreover, with the features discussed herein, it is possible to provide for a data processing environment that allows to convert object data, for example CAD model data, from the pre-existing CAD, CAE, and CAM world, and other software environment for finite element analysis, into the world of H-spline, as defined in U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0357736, presenting the advantages of the easy creation of watertight boundaries between two different objects or surfaces, the direct and possibly interactive control of higher-order derivatives of shapes, and the possibility of refining of surfaces and objects to a higher mesh resolution.”) (Schmitter, [0087]: “The computation performed by data processing device 20 possibly includes modifying or changing the resolution, refinement and possibly sampling rate of the IGA solution and the H-spline based CAD representation. Data processing device 20 executes this task by re-computing the solutions with different precision depending on the value of the refinement factor m.”) (Schmitter, [0088]: “The subsequently generated data is sent to a tolerance-measure unit TMU that evaluates an approximation error, which for example is computed based on the difference between the solutions obtained with two subsequent resolutions or which is based on physical criteria such as for example, but not limited to, the spatial resolution that can be described with the current refinement level or any other physically-based criterion such as temperature, weight, pressure, velocities or acceleration, electric current, magnetic fields, stress-related quantities, etc.”) (Schmitter, [0022]: “Preferably, the method comprising the steps of computing and matching the refinement level of the digital IGA representation to the refinement of the digital CAD model”).
Regarding claim 6, Schmitter/Hsu teaches
the envelope CAD domain approximates no geometric features of the CAD model (Schmitter, [0063]: “In this step, the PPS is required to define the shape where the IGA should be performed on.”) (Schmitter, [0066]: “In a further step S220, adaptive refinement of the IGA is carried out to improve the accuracy of the computation and simulation of the physical properties. This step also increases the resolution of the ASG and hence, of the PPS. This leads to a more precise solution of the IGA, to obtain a more refined SSF.”) (Schmitter, [0073]: “Moreover, with the features discussed herein, it is possible to provide for a data processing environment that allows to convert object data, for example CAD model data, from the pre-existing CAD, CAE, and CAM world, and other software environment for finite element analysis, into the world of H-spline, as defined in U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0357736, presenting the advantages of the easy creation of watertight boundaries between two different objects or surfaces, the direct and possibly interactive control of higher-order derivatives of shapes, and the possibility of refining of surfaces and objects to a higher mesh resolution.”) (Schmitter, [0087]: “The computation performed by data processing device 20 possibly includes modifying or changing the resolution, refinement and possibly sampling rate of the IGA solution and the H-spline based CAD representation. Data processing device 20 executes this task by re-computing the solutions with different precision depending on the value of the refinement factor m.”) (Schmitter, [0088]: “The subsequently generated data is sent to a tolerance-measure unit TMU that evaluates an approximation error, which for example is computed based on the difference between the solutions obtained with two subsequent resolutions or which is based on physical criteria such as for example, but not limited to, the spatial resolution that can be described with the current refinement level or any other physically-based criterion such as temperature, weight, pressure, velocities or acceleration, electric current, magnetic fields, stress-related quantities, etc.”) (Schmitter, [0022]: “Preferably, the method comprising the steps of computing and matching the refinement level of the digital IGA representation to the refinement of the digital CAD model”) (Schmitter, [0013]: “The final mesh needs to fulfill several important criteria regarding its structure, level of detail, size of elements and overall mesh quality, for example to ensure that a surface or volume does not contain any holes, and that the smoothness of curves, edges or corners corresponds to the desired accuracy.”).
Examiner notes that as explained in claim 1, Schmitter discloses choosing the amount of detail represented in the envelope CAD domain according to the physical criteria or the level of detail required for the CAE simulation. In addition, Schmitter discloses matching the refinement level of the analysis suitable geometry to the refinement level of the geometric object. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to approximate none of the geometric features of the CAD model from the disclosure of Schmitter. In addition, Schmitter discloses a case in which the final mesh should not contain any holes. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to generate an envelope CAD domain in which the level of detail required for the CAE simulation is that none of the geometric features should be shown on the envelope CAD domain.
Regarding claim 8, Schmitter/Hsu teaches
outputting the generated CAE simulation results comprises storing the simulation results in durable computer-readable data storage (Schmitter, [0088]: “Then the solution surface SSF is output to step S200 of method 500, for example steps of method 1500 for providing manufacture ready data in a step S240, for data processing by commercial CAD/CAE/CAM software”) (Schmitter, [0073]: “With the help of parallel and fast graphics processing, this conversion from CAD model data to H-spline and back can be done in real-time, such that the object data of the CAD model and H-spline model can be visualized simultaneously on a display screen 22.”) (Schmitter, [0092]: “Moreover, a dataset 12 is schematically shown, that can be located locally in a storage 26 associated with data processing device 20”).
Regarding claim 9, Schmitter/Hsu teaches
outputting the generated CAE simulation results comprises displaying the simulation results on a display device (Schmitter, [0088]: “Then the solution surface SSF is output to step S200 of method 500, for example steps of method 1500 for providing manufacture ready data in a step S240, for data processing by commercial CAD/CAE/CAM software”) (Schmitter, [0073]: “With the help of parallel and fast graphics processing, this conversion from CAD model data to H-spline and back can be done in real-time, such that the object data of the CAD model and H-spline model can be visualized simultaneously on a display screen 22.”) (Schmitter, [0092]: “This allows to access various cloud-based and network-based services, for example but not limited to cloud or network servers 50, cloud or network data storage devices 60, specific web servers providing databases of graphics data. Display device 22 can display different stages and results of the data processing steps of the method 500, 1500, and is also capable of displaying 2D or 3D images to represent results and processing steps of the method.”).
Regarding claim 16, Schmitter/Hsu teaches
the envelope CAD domain is selected based on an improvement in accuracy and robustness of the generated CAE simulation results (Schmitter, [0098]: “An adaptive refinement of the solution allows to improve the accuracy to obtain simulations that are precise enough to manufacture prototypes of the vehicles that are first tested in real conditions before the models undergo serial production.”) (Schmitter, [0088]: “The subsequently generated data is sent to a tolerance-measure unit TMU that evaluates an approximation error, which for example is computed based on the difference between the solutions obtained with two subsequent resolutions or which is based on physical criteria such as for example, but not limited to, the spatial resolution that can be described with the current refinement level or any other physically-based criterion such as temperature, weight, pressure, velocities or acceleration, electric current, magnetic fields, stress-related quantities, etc. Based on a thresholding operation the TMU outputs the solution or sends it into the refinement unit RU that refines the H-spline based representations of K and F and adapts the refinement to the H-spline based PPS. The refined K and F are then again sent to the SV and TMU for thresholding. This loop is executed iteratively until a tolerance value is reached, typically until the solution after a new refinement step does no longer significantly change from one iteration to another or if a certain number of iterations has been reached. Then the solution surface SSF is output to step S200 of method 500, for example steps of method 1500 for providing manufacture ready data in a step S240, for data processing by commercial CAD/CAE/CAM software”).
Examiner notes that Schmitter discloses iteratively generating or modifying the envelope CAD model to generate models with different resolution or level of detail. Schmitter also discloses comparing the level of detail of the models to a threshold to determine whether or not it meets the level of detail required for the CAE simulation, and, if the level of detail is not satisfactory, regenerating the model. The model with the satisfactory resolution is output (selected) for the CAE simulation.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 1. Therefore, the same analysis is applicable.
In addition, Schmitter/Hsu teaches
one or more computer readable storage devices having encoded therein computer-executable instructions (Schmitter, [0022]: “According to still another aspect of the present invention, a non-transitory computer readable medium having computer instructions recorded thereon is provided, the computer instructions configured to perform a method when executed on a hardware processor of a computer having memory and a display.”).
Claims 10, 13-15, 17-18, and 22-27 are substantially similar to claims 1, 4-6, 8-9, and 16 and therefore rejected for the similar reasons.
Claim(s) 2, 11, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitter in view of Hsu in further view of Thomas (US20190130058A1).
Regarding claim 2, Schmitter/Hsu does not but Thomas teaches
the spline representation comprises U-splines ([0065]: “The use of U-splines in commercial CAD and CAE implementations can improve the quality and flexibility of shape representation, the accuracy, robustness, and efficiency of simulation”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spline representation of Schmitter/Hsu to incorporate the U-splines of Thomas to provide U-splines for the spline representation.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because U-splines allow smoothness, enable more robust, accurate, and efficient simulation results (Thomas, [0255]: “The unique properties of the U-spline basis, such as smoothness, enable more robust, accurate, and efficient simulation results than traditional approaches to CAE, such is finite element analysis (FEA). Introducing exact U-spline geometry into simulation also improves simulation behavior since a faceted approximation is replaced by the smooth exact CAD geometry.”).
Claims 11 and 20 are substantially similar to claim 2 and therefore rejected for the similar reasons.
Claim(s) 3, 12, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitter in view of Hsu in further view of Tierney et al. (“Using virtual topology operations to generate analysis topology”).
Regarding claim 3, Schmitter/Hsu teaches
a topology of the spline representation of the CAD envelope is comprised of standard CAD entities (Schmitter, [0005]-[0006]: “NURBS enable interactive and smooth free-form surface modeling for organic shape design and they are suitable to exactly represent circles and ellipses, which are important shape primitives used in CAD.”).
Schmitter/Hsu does not explicitly teach
CAD decomposition, imprint, merge, and virtual topology operations.
However, Tierney teaches
CAD decomposition, imprint, merge, and virtual topology operations (Pg. 166: “For more complex scenarios, further work is required to automatically propagate the blocking to progress from the initial coarse block decomposition using a series of merge and imprint operations to achieve a more readily meshable block decomposition.”) (Pg. 166: “The virtual topology tool will accept two bounding edges of a parasite face as the manual input and will automate the partitioning of all lower bounding topologies and the addition of the remaining edges bounding the parasite face”).
Schmitter/Hsu and Tierney are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of modeling an object using CAD operations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the CAD operations of Schmitter/Hsu to incorporate the CAD operations of Tierney to provide CAD decomposition, imprint, merge, and virtual topology operations.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because generating a topology using such operations allows identification of appropriate meshing strategies for subset cells and automatically managing topological relationships (Tierney, Pg. 155: “The generation of an analysis topology using virtual topology operations enables tools to operate in the presence of virtual topology including the identification of appropriate meshing strategies for subset cells. Once virtual merge or split operations have been defined all topological relationships are automatically managed.”).
Therefore, the combination of Schmitter/Hsu and Tierney teaches
a topology of the spline representation of the CAD envelope is comprised of standard CAD entities and CAD decomposition, imprint, merge, and virtual topology operations (Schmitter, [0005]-[0006]: “NURBS enable interactive and smooth free-form surface modeling for organic shape design and they are suitable to exactly represent circles and ellipses, which are important shape primitives used in CAD.”) (Tierney, Pg. 166: “For more complex scenarios, further work is required to automatically propagate the blocking to progress from the initial coarse block decomposition using a series of merge and imprint operations to achieve a more readily meshable block decomposition.”) (Tierney, Pg. 166: “The virtual topology tool will accept two bounding edges of a parasite face as the manual input and will automate the partitioning of all lower bounding topologies and the addition of the remaining edges bounding the parasite face”).
Claims 12 and 21 are substantially similar to claim 3 and therefore rejected for the similar reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bouchiba et al. (“Computational Fluid Dynamics on 3D Point Set Surfaces”)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEIN JEONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1549. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm ET.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached on (571) 270-1104. 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.
/HEIN JEONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186