DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/20/2025 has been entered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101
With regard to the rejections of the claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, applicant disagrees that the instant claims are directed to a judicial exception. Applicant particularly argues that the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method, a computer-aided design system, and a computer program product under Step 1 of the 2019 PEG. Examiner agrees with this assertion that the independent claims 1, 10, and 19 are directed to such categories of invention.
Applicant further argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, namely as a mental and asserts that claim 1 does not recite elements that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper because allegedly a human cannot mentally or through use of pen and paper create a computer-based beam element model, automatically generate contact entities, establish a mesh, and perform a computer-based simulation using the computer based beam element model and the mesh. Arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. After further evaluation of the claims, the recited steps of the independent claims can all be performed practically in the human mind using pen and paper as assistive physical aids. This is demonstrated by the figures provided in the instant application which depict drawings of computer based models with contact entities and established meshes. The images further depict interactions between two geometries (see fig 9) where a simulated sequence of changes characterized by mathematics and rules can define a simulation which can be drawn and observed by the human mind to determine behavior. Specifically reciting a computer-based beam element model, automatic task performance, and a computer-based simulation does exclude the claim from being considered a mental process. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), “Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind."” and “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.”. The applicant appears to simply be using generic computing components as a tool to perform the mental process. The limitations imposing computer-implementation do not appear to describe a particular machine or apparatus that implements the steps of the method and instead spears to use generically claimed computing elements as objects on which the method operates, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(b)). In order for a machine to add significantly more to the judicial exception, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed rather than function as an obvious mechanism for permitting the solution to be achieved more quickly. Accordingly, the claims are understood by the examiner to be executed by a human being using assistive aids and the claims merely recite computers in attempt to limit such mental process.
Applicant further argues that any alleged judicial exception is integrated into a practical application by providing an improvement to a real-world problem in computer simulation. Applicant notes that if the claim elements reflect an improvement to technology or a technical field that the claims are integrated into a practical application and this can be demonstrated by having the claim cover a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome. Applicant argues that the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. Applicant arguments have been considered and are not persuasive. Any purported improvement to technology flows as a direct consequence of an improvement in the process which can be construed as a mental process itself. Per MPEP 2106.05(a), II.: "it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.". That is to say that the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement and must be provided by an additional elements. Any additional elements identified in the claims (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))) have been identified by the courts as elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more, as stated herein this office action.
For the reasons stated in this response, in conjunction with the updated rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the rejections to claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been maintained.
35 U.S.C. 102
Applicant argues that Bout (referenced US Patent No 9,361,413 B1) alone does not teach each element of Claim 1 for the limitations “wherein motion of the mesh… is constrained to correspond to motion of the beam nodes.”. Applicant particularly points out that Bout’s segment is not equivalent to a mesh. Though the Examiner contends that Bout also describes the segments as characterizing the surface of a simulated object and subsequently characterizes the surface of the object as a deformed mesh (See Fig 17), the correlation appears to be more implicit rather than explicit in the disclosure. When considered in conjunction with the amendments to the claims, the limitation has been re-evaluated and the applicant’s argument is considered moot because the limitation particularly challenged does not rely on the reference applied in the prior rejection. A new grounds of rejection has been set forth based on Bout in view of Monaghan, as stated within this action. Accordingly, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is given and the claim remains rejected over the prior art.
Applicant further argues that Bout does not anticipate the functionality of “the generated contact entities including contact nodes of the computer-based beam element model” and “establishing a mesh based on the generated contact entities by connecting the contact nodes”. Applicant arguments have been considered and are persuasive but are considered moot based on the new grounds set forth, as a result from the amendment. Bout alone does not particularly disclose how the meshed geometry is generated. However, after further search in consideration in light of the amendments, a new grounds of rejection has been set forth wherein SimTech Group is relied upon to disclose a contact match meshing approach that covers the claimed limitations. Accordingly, the rejection to claim 1 is still rendered obvious over the combined prior art and remains rejected.
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant argues that claims 6, 7, 15, and 16 inherit patentable features of their respective independent base claims and that Magnard, alone or in combination with Bout does not teach the entirety of the claim limitations. Because the rejection of the base claims from which these claims depend has been maintained based on a new grounds of rejection and no further limitations are introduced that overcome the prior art of record, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are accordingly maintained.
Likewise, applicant argues that claims 8 and 17 inherit patentable features of their respective independent base claims and that Singh, alone or in combination with Bout, does not teach the entirety of the claim limitations. Because the rejection of the base claims from which these claims depend has been maintained based on a new grounds of rejection and no further limitations are introduced that overcome the prior art of record, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are accordingly maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Particularly, the inclusion of the word “entire” with regard to the limitation “entire surface geometry of the component of the real-world object” in independent claims 1, 10 and 19 introduces new matter because the originally filed disclosure does not appear to be present in the specification, drawings, or originally filed claims. The instant specification ¶37 describes a mesh representation representing the surface geometry of the beam element model. Specification ¶42 further describes the mesh representing surface geometry of the component of the real-world object. Figure 3c depicts a mesh representation of a beam element model, wherein a partial view of the mesh is visible. There are no recitations or clear indications that the entire surface geometry of the component are particularly disclosed as a detail of the claimed invention per the original filing.
The dependent claims of each respective independent claim incorporate the deficiency and are rejected under the same rationale.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following section follows the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG) for analyzing subject matter eligibility:
Step 1 - Statutory Category:
Step 1 of the PEG analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A Prong 1 - Judicial exception:
In Step 2A Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea, law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Step 2a Prong 2 - Integration into a practical application:
If claims recite a judicial exception, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong 2. In Step 2A Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B - Significantly More:
If the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception and requires further analysis under Step 2B- Significantly More.
As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong 2, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 on the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) -(c), (e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. Claim limitations identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activities are further evaluated to determine if the elements are beyond what is well -understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity, as dictated by MPEP 2106.05(II).
Independent Claims:
Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-9 are directed to a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
creating, in memory, a computer-based beam element model representing a component of a real-world object, the computer-based beam element model comprising beam nodes; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail using judgment to create a beam element model representative of a real-world object with beam nodes as part of the model definition. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, a beam element model is a simplified representation of a beam on which structural analyses can be complete and, as such, a human being could draw a representation of a beam element and define characteristics of the representation that dictate the behavior of the model. The claim recites the use of a processor (per the preamble) to implement the limitation; however, per MPEP2106.04(a)(2)(III), “Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.” and “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.”. The recitation of implementing the steps by a processor and using memory amounts to the recitation of a generic computer to implement the mental process. Stating that the beam element model is “computer-based” does not limit the claim in such a way that it cannot be practically performed in the human mind using pen and paper as assistive physical aids- it simply is the recitation of a computer as a tool to perform a process which can be performed using pen and paper. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
automatically generating contact entities based on (i) a cross-sectional geometry of the component of the real-world object and (ii) the created computer-based beam element model, wherein the generated contact entities include contact nodes of the computer-based beam element model;. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a cross-sectional geometry of the component of the real-world object and the created beam element model to identify appropriate contact entities. This can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, given a beam element model drawn on paper, a human can mentally evaluate the geometry of the component of the real-world object in conjunction with a model drawn on paper to determine (generate) appropriate entities of contact to perform analysis on. This claim recites the use of a computer to implement the method (per the preamble) and therefore to execute the claimed functionality automatically. Furthermore, this claim appears to limit the claim by claiming “a computer-based beam element model”. However, per the MPEP, the claim is still considered a mental process when using a computer as a tool to perform the mental process. In this claim, the computer-based beam element model is simply using a computer as a tool to implement a process which can be done in the mind using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. As such, this limitation, as drafted, is a process that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind using generic computing components as a tool to perform the concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
establishing a mesh based on the generated contact entities by connecting the contact nodes, the mesh representing entire surface geometry of the component of the real-world object; and. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating contact nodes and imparting connections between them so as to establish a mesh characterizing the surface. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, when drawing a beam element model using pen and paper, a human being can further identify the contact nodes and draw a line connecting the contact nodes so as to form a representation of the object that is discretized for further analysis (as a mesh). Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
determining contact behavior of the real-world object by performing a computer-based simulation using the computer-based beam element model and the established mesh, wherein motion of the mesh, representing entire surface geometry of the component of the real-world object, is constrained to correspond to motion of the beam nodes. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the beam element model and the established mesh for behavior during motion interactions of objects. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, given a drawn and discretized model on a piece of paper, a human can mathematically evaluate (computer based simulation) the geometry with imposed constraints to form a judgement regarding contact behavior. The claim recites performing a computer-based simulation to execute the claimed functionality, whereby a computer-based simulation is recited at a high level of generality. Furthermore, this claim appears to limit the claim by claiming “a computer-based beam element model”. However, per the MPEP, the claim is still considered a mental process when using a computer as a tool to perform the mental process. As such, this limitation, as drafted, is a process that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind using generic computing components as a tool to perform the concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: The claim does recite any additional elements that would integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10:
Step 1: Claim 10 and its dependent claims 11-18 are directed to a system which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 10 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
create, in the memory, a computer-based beam element model representing a component of a real-world object, the computer-based beam element model comprising beam nodes; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail using judgment to create a beam element model representative of a real-world object with beam nodes as part of the model definition. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, a beam element model is a simplified representation of a beam on which structural analyses can be complete and, as such, a human being could draw a representation of a beam element and define characteristics of the representation that dictate the behavior of the model. The claim recites the use of a processor (per the preamble) to implement the limitation; however, per MPEP2106.04(a)(2)(III), “Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.” and “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.”. The recitation of implementing the steps by a processor and using memory amounts to the recitation of a generic computer to implement the mental process. Stating that the beam element model is “computer-based” does not limit the claim in such a way that it cannot be practically performed in the human mind using pen and paper as assistive physical aids- it simply is the recitation of a computer as a tool to perform a process which can be performed using pen and paper. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
automatically generate contact entities based on a cross-sectional geometry of the component of the real-world object and the created computer-based beam element model, wherein the generated contact entities include contact nodes of the computer-based beam element model; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a cross-sectional geometry of the component of the real-world object and the created beam element model to identify appropriate contact entities. This can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, given a beam element model drawn on paper, a human can mentally evaluate the geometry of the component of the real-world object in conjunction with a model drawn on paper to determine (generate) appropriate entities of contact to perform analysis on. This claim recites the use of a computer to implement the method (per the preamble) and therefore to execute the claimed functionality automatically. Furthermore, this claim appears to limit the claim by claiming “a computer-based beam element model”. However, per the MPEP, the claim is still considered a mental process when using a computer as a tool to perform the mental process. In this claim, the computer-based beam element model is simply using a computer as a tool to implement a process which can be done in the mind using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. As such, this limitation, as drafted, is a process that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind using generic computing components as a tool to perform the concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
establish a mesh based on the generated contact entities by connecting the contact nodes, the mesh representing entire surface geometry of the component of the real-world object; and. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating contact nodes and imparting connections between them so as to establish a mesh characterizing the surface. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, when drawing a beam element model using pen and paper, a human being can further identify the contact nodes and draw a line connecting the contact nodes so as to form a representation of the object that is discretized for further analysis (as a mesh). Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
determine contact behavior of the real-world object by performing a computer-based simulation using the computer-based beam element model and the established mesh, wherein motion of the mesh, representing entire surface geometry of the component of the real-world object, is constrained to correspond to motion of the beam nodes. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the beam element model and the established mesh for behavior during motion interactions of objects. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, given a drawn and discretized model on a piece of paper, a human can mathematically evaluate (computer based simulation) the geometry with imposed constraints to form a judgement regarding contact behavior. The claim recites performing a computer-based simulation to execute the claimed functionality, whereby a computer-based simulation is recited at a high level of generality. Furthermore, this claim appears to limit the claim by claiming “a computer-based beam element model”. However, per the MPEP, the claim is still considered a mental process when using a computer as a tool to perform the mental process. As such, this limitation, as drafted, is a process that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind using generic computing components as a tool to perform the concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
a processor; and- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
memory with computer code instructions stored thereon, the processor and the memory, with the computer code instructions, being configured to cause the system to:- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional element does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, no additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and therefore no further evaluation is required to determine if they are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 19:
Step 1: Claim 19 and its dependent claim 20 are directed to a computer program product which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 19 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
create, in a database, a computer-based beam element model representing a component of a real-world object, the computer-based beam element model comprising beam nodes; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail using judgment to create a beam element model representative of a real-world object with beam nodes as part of the model definition. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, a beam element model is a simplified representation of a beam on which structural analyses can be complete and, as such, a human being could draw a representation of a beam element and define characteristics of the representation that dictate the behavior of the model. The claim recites the use of a processor (per the preamble) to implement the limitation; however, per MPEP2106.04(a)(2)(III), “Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.” and “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.”. The recitation of implementing the steps by a processor and using a database (which may exist on a generic computer or may alternatively be paper-based) amounts to the recitation of a generic computer to implement the mental process. Stating that the beam element model is “computer-based” does not limit the claim in such a way that it cannot be practically performed in the human mind using pen and paper as assistive physical aids- it simply is the recitation of a computer as a tool to perform a process which can be performed using pen and paper. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
automatically generate contact entities based on a cross-sectional geometry of the component of the real-world object and the created computer-based beam element model, wherein the generated contact entities include contact nodes of the computer-based beam element model; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a cross-sectional geometry of the component of the real-world object and the created beam element model to identify appropriate contact entities. This can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, given a beam element model drawn on paper, a human can mentally evaluate the geometry of the component of the real-world object in conjunction with a model drawn on paper to determine (generate) appropriate entities of contact to perform analysis on. This claim recites the use of a computer to implement the method (per the preamble) and therefore to execute the claimed functionality automatically. Furthermore, this claim appears to limit the claim by claiming “a computer-based beam element model”. However, per the MPEP, the claim is still considered a mental process when using a computer as a tool to perform the mental process. In this claim, the computer-based beam element model is simply using a computer as a tool to implement a process which can be done in the mind using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. As such, this limitation, as drafted, is a process that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind using generic computing components as a tool to perform the concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
establish a mesh based on the generated contact entities by connecting the contact nodes, the mesh representing entire surface geometry of the component of the real-world object; and. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating contact nodes and imparting connections between them so as to establish a mesh characterizing the surface. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, when drawing a beam element model using pen and paper, a human being can further identify the contact nodes and draw a line connecting the contact nodes so as to form a representation of the object that is discretized for further analysis (as a mesh). Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
determine contact behavior of the real-world object by performing a computer-based simulation using the computer-based beam element model and the established mesh, wherein motion of the mesh, representing entire surface geometry of the component of the real-world object, is constrained to correspond to motion of the beam nodes. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the beam element model and the established mesh for behavior during motion interactions of objects. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, given a drawn and discretized model on a piece of paper, a human can mathematically evaluate (computer based simulation) the geometry with imposed constraints to form a judgement regarding contact behavior. The claim recites performing a computer-based simulation to execute the claimed functionality, whereby a computer-based simulation is recited at a high level of generality. Furthermore, this claim appears to limit the claim by claiming “a computer-based beam element model”. However, per the MPEP, the claim is still considered a mental process when using a computer as a tool to perform the mental process. As such, this limitation, as drafted, is a process that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind using generic computing components as a tool to perform the concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
a non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-readable program instructions stored thereon, the instructions, when executed by a processor, causing the processor to:- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) .
The courts have found that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional element does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, no additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and therefore no further evaluation is required to determine if they are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claims:
Examiner notes limitations identified as judicial exceptions are indicated in italicized bold and limitations identified as additional elements are indicated using italics.
Claim 2
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 2, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 2 additionally recites the limitation instantiating connections between the contact nodes, which can reasonably be read to entail connecting contact nodes, which can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example by drawing points of contact on a model and drawing lines so as to connect the points of contact. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 2 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 3, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 3 additionally recites the limitation connecting the contact nodes in a tessellated pattern, which can reasonably be read to entail connecting contact nodes in a particular pattern which is a task that can practically be performed in the human mind using physical assistive aids such as pen and paper. For example, a human being can draw connections between nodes in a patterned configuration. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 3 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 4, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim additionally recites the limitation wherein automatically generating contact entities includes setting locations of the contact nodes based on the cross-sectional geometry., which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating the cross-sectional geometry to identify and specify where contact nodes should be located. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 4 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 5, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 5 additionally recites the limitation connecting contact entities generated based on a first cross-sectional geometry with corresponding contact entities generated based on a second cross-sectional geometry., which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating a first cross sectional geometry and a second cross sectional geometry and their respective contact entities and connecting them accordingly. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, a human being can evaluate the contact entities of both geometries and connect the entities by drawing a line between them. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 5 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 6, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 6 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 6 additionally recites the limitation receiving a user indication of the cross-sectional geometry in form of a keyword. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering. The courts have ruled that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: When read in light of the specification and under broadest reasonable interpretation, receiving data in this context includes receiving data over a network. The courts have recognized the computer functions of receiving and transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). Adding well-understood, routine, and conventional activity is not sufficient to qualify as significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 7, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 7 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 7 additionally recites the limitation providing a drop-down menu, the drop-down menu displaying a plurality of keywords, or representations thereof, wherein the user indication of the cross-sectional geometry is received via a user selection from the drop-down menu of the keyword from among the plurality of keywords. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have ruled that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: When read in light of the specification and under broadest reasonable interpretation, receiving data in this context includes receiving data over a network. The courts have recognized the computer functions of receiving and transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). Adding well-understood, routine, and conventional activity is not sufficient to qualify as significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 8, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 8 additionally recites the limitation defining an edge between the pair of beam nodes; and defining a material that comprises the component represented by the computer-based beam element model., which can reasonably be read to entail make a judgement as to the edge between the beam nodes and a judgement as to the material that comprises the component represented by the model. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, defining these values may entail describing them which can be done mentally or using pen and paper to convey the definition in a visual or worded sense. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2& Step 2B: Claim 8 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 9, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 9 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 9 additionally recites the limitation receiving a finite element model of a second component; and. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have ruled that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 9 additionally recites the limitation performing the computer-based simulation using the computer-based beam element model, the established mesh, and the received finite element model of the second component to determine the contact behavior of the real-world object in response to contacting the second component. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation recites performing the simulation at a high level of generality as a way to execute the abstract idea. The courts have ruled that merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: When read in light of the specification and under broadest reasonable interpretation, receiving data in this context includes receiving data over a network. The courts have recognized the computer functions of receiving and transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). Adding well-understood, routine, and conventional activity is not sufficient to qualify as significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Furthermore, the courts have found that mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer is not enough to quality as significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 11, the judicial exception of independent claim 10 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 11 additionally recites the limitation instantiate connections between the contact nodes, which can reasonably be read to entail connecting contact nodes, which can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example by drawing points of contact on a model and drawing lines so as to connect the points of contact. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 11 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 12, the judicial exception of independent claim 10 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 12 additionally recites the limitation set locations of the contact nodes based on the cross-sectional geometry, which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating the cross-sectional geometry to identify and specify where contact nodes should be located. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 12 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 13
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 13, the judicial exception of independent claim 10 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 13 additionally recites the limitation connect generated contact entities of a first cross-sectional geometry with corresponding generated contact entities of a second cross-sectional geometry., which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating a first cross sectional geometry and a second cross sectional geometry and their respective contact entities and connecting them accordingly. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, a human being can evaluate the contact entities of both geometries and connect the entities by drawing a line between them. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 13 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 14
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 14, the judicial exception of independent claim 10 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 14 additionally recites the limitation tessellate the mesh between the first and second cross-sectional geometries., which can reasonably be read to entail imparting a tessellated pattern on the representative surface between two cross sectional geometries. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, a human being can draw a tessellated pattern so as to represent the surface mesh occurring between two geometries. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 14 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 15
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 15, the judicial exception of independent claim 10 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 15 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 15 additionally recites the limitation receive a user indication of the cross-sectional geometry in a form of a keyword. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering. The courts have ruled that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: When read in light of the specification and under broadest reasonable interpretation, receiving data in this context includes receiving data over a network. The courts have recognized the computer functions of receiving and transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). Adding well-understood, routine, and conventional activity is not sufficient to qualify as significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 16
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 16, the judicial exception of independent claim 10 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 16 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 16 additionally recites the limitation a graphical display device configured to provide a drop-down menu, the dropdown menu including keywords, or representations thereof; and. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have ruled that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The limitation has further been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of computers to perform a task. Claim 16 additionally recites the limitation a wherein the processor and the memory, with the computer code instructions, are further configured to cause the system to receive the user indication of the cross-sectional geometry via a user selection from the drop-down menu. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering. The claim has further been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) .The courts have ruled that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: When read in light of the specification and under broadest reasonable interpretation, receiving data in this context includes receiving data over a network and providing a drop down menu includes transmitting data. The courts have recognized the computer functions of receiving and transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). Adding well-understood, routine, and conventional activity is not sufficient to qualify as significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Furthermore the courts have found that invoking the use of generic computers to perform tasks does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 17
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 17, the judicial exception of independent claim 10 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 17 additionally recites the limitation define an edge between the pair of the beam nodes; and define a material comprising the component represented by the computer-based beam element model., which can reasonably be read to entail make a judgement as to the edge between the beam nodes and a judgement as to the material that comprises the component represented by the model. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, defining these values may entail describing them which can be done mentally or using pen and paper to convey the definition in a visual or worded sense. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 17 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 18
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 18, the judicial exception of independent claim 10 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 18 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 18 additionally recites the limitation receive a finite element model of a second component; and. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have ruled that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 18 additionally recites the limitation perform the computer-based simulation using the computer-based beam element model, the established mesh, and the received finite element model of the second component to determine the contact behavior of the real-world object in response to contacting the second component. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation recites performing the simulation at a high level of generality as a way to execute the abstract idea. The courts have ruled that merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: When read in light of the specification and under broadest reasonable interpretation, receiving data in this context includes receiving data over a network. The courts have recognized the computer functions of receiving and transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). Adding well-understood, routine, and conventional activity is not sufficient to qualify as significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Furthermore, the courts have found that mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer is not enough to quality as significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 20
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 20, the judicial exception of independent claim 10 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim # additionally recites the limitation (i) automatically generate the contact entities by setting locations of the contact nodes based on the cross-sectional geometry, and (ii) connect the contact nodes by instantiating connections between the contact nodes., which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating the cross-sectional geometry to identify and specify where contact nodes should be located. Further the claim entails making a judgment for how connections are placed between contact nodes. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example by drawing points of contact on a model and drawing lines so as to connect the points of contact. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 20 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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, 9-14, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bout et al ( US Patent No 9361413 B1), hereinafter referred to as Bout in view of SimuTech Group (SimuTech Group, “Using Contact Match Mesh Control in Ansys Mechanical”, Aug 18, 2020, Youtube.com), hereinafter referred to as SimuTech Group, and further in view of Monaghan et al (Monaghan, I., Doherty, D. and Armstrong, C., “Coupling 1D Beams to 3D Bodies”, Available online Feb 16, 2019, Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, The Queen’s University of Belfast, static.aminer.org/pdf/PDF/000/397/888/coupling_d_beams_to_d_bodies.pdf), hereinafter referred to as Monaghan.
Regarding claim 1, Bout discloses (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[..]])) A computer-implemented method for simulating a real-world object to determine contact behavior of the real-world object, the method comprising, by a processor: A method is disclosed for using a computer system to perform contact analysis on representations of physical objects to determine a stiffness matrix that characterizes the contact behavior. (Bout, Figure 15, Figure 20, Figure 21); ((Bout, Col 3, Lines 9-11 ¶) “FIG. 15 is a flow diagram illustrating a process that is used to analyze contact between beams, pipes or other objects in 10 accordance with an exemplary embodiment"); ((Bout, Col 7, Lines 4-25) " FIG. 15 shows a process that is used to analyze contact between beams, pipe or other objects. At step 1501, auxiliary points may be assigned to the segments shown in FIG. 16. In one embodiment, the auxiliary point may represent the corners of the segment or points that define the segment. At step 1503, distance between the auxiliary points of one segment compared to the auxiliary points of another segment is determined. At step 1505, poly lines (for two dimensional) or polygons (for three dimensional) are created based on the projection of segments which are in close proximity with one another. At step 1507, a computer system may determine if one polygon is in contact with another polygon. When the 15 polygons are in contact with each other, at step 1509, a stiffness matrix is calculated between the polygons that are in contact with each other. At step 1511 friction is detected between the two polygons. At step 1513, the polygon contribution of the stiffness matrix and force vectors to the segment 20 points on the segment is calculated. An example method of calculating is discussed in greater detail below. At step 1515, the stiffness matrix and force vector are transformed from segment points to nodal points of the object using the Rigid Body Element, (RBE2) method"). The computer system includes the utilization of a processor to execute instructions that define the method of performing contact analysis ((Bout, Col 16, Lines 40-42) " A system, comprising a computer processor, operably coupled to a non-transitory memory storing computer executable instructions that, when executed by the processor…")
creating, in memory, a computer-based beam element model representing a component of a real-world object, the computer-based beam element model comprising beam nodes; Memory is used to store a geometric model ((Bout, Col 11, Lines 41-45) "In another implementation, the storage device 2240 may also include non-transitory storage media that is configured to store information regarding the geometric model and the finite element model that is being currently modified or was created in the past."). Figure 3a and 3b show the geometric model of beam or pipe elements, where beams and pipes are real-world objects and the elements include nodal points as beam nodes ((Bout, Col 4, Lines 1-9) " FIGS. 3a and 3b shows the modeling of beam or pipe elements that include a definition of the cross-section orientation of the cross section with respect to the length and the global coordinate system (shown as x, y, and z). For each element along the part there is an orientation VE which is a directional cosine with respect to the global coordinate system. At the nodal points 301 and 303 there may be multiple orientations based upon the elements that are connected to the nodal points 301 and 303."); (Bout, Figures 3a and 3b). A part represented by the geometric model can include a beam element (Bout, Figure 5); ((Bout, Col 4, lines 31-33) "Next, at block 501 the system determines whether a beam is represented in the CAD tool environment with a plurality of segments."); ((Bout, Col 4, Lines 61-64) "At block 517, if the part is represented as a beam element, then the part may be represented in an expanded mode that comprises segments that combine to make the beam element"). The simulated object is described as being manipulated in a computer system, thereby indicating that the beam element model is computer-based ((Bout, Col 11, Lines 65-67) "Upon receiving the model information, the CAD/CAE system 2210 may display the geometric model on the display device 2220.")
automatically generating contact entities based on (i) a cross-sectional geometry of the component of the real-world object and (ii) the created computer-based beam element model, A geometric representation is used to define contact for a simulated object. The geometric representation accounts for the coordinate position of nodes of the beam (which define the beam element model) and beam cross section definition (which is the cross-sectional geometry of the simulated beam object) ((Bout, Col 4, Lines 11-23) "FIG. 4a shows a T beam 400 that has a central axial dimension that connects the nodes 401 and 403. FIG. 4b shows a T beam 450 that has a lower axial dimension that connects the nodes 405 and 407. The beam offset represents the distance between the beam origin (usually the shear center) and the nodal coordinate position. Additionally, the geometric offset is utilized to construct the geometric representation of the contact surfaces. As shown in FIGS. 4a and 4b, the physical location of the beam is used in the subsequent calculation. In one embodiment, the geometric representation used for contact will take into account all four of these aspects of the beam, the coordinate position of nodes of beam, beam cross section definition, cross section orientation and beam offsets."). The geometric representation that includes contact information is generated by the system, and no pre-cursory or intervening steps are disclosed, indicating that the system generates the geometric representation automatically. ((Bout, Col 10, Lines 45-52) "FIG. 21 is another example process that may is implemented on a computer system with a process tied to a nontransitory machine readable storage medium. At step 2101, the system generates a geometric representation of a first stimulated object that comprises a plurality of segments. At step 2103, the system may generate a second stimulated physical object with a region detected to be in contact with the first stimulated object."). The system evaluates the geometric representation to define contact edges, contact surfaces, and contact segments as contact entities ((Bout, Col 4, Lines 43-52) "Based on the determining the way a part is represented in the figure, the system determines edges, faces or segments. An edge is a line that connects two nodes that represents the beam or pipe element or is on the perimeter of the element. The contact edges are the collection of edges that enclose an object. A face is a region that bounds three or more nodes on the perimeter of the element. The contact faces are the collection of faces that enclose the volume of an object. A segment is a bounded region that represents where contact may occur."). The simulated object is described as being manipulated in a computer system, thereby indicating that the beam element model is computer-based ((Bout, Col 11, Lines 65-67) "Upon receiving the model information, the CAD/CAE system 2210 may display the geometric model on the display device 2220."). wherein the generated contact entities include contact nodes of the computer-based beam element model; Geometric representations of structures include beams to create a beam element model comprised of combined segments. ((Bout, Col 4, Lines 62-64) " At block517, if the part is represented as a beam element, then the part may be represented in an expanded mode that comprises segments that combine to make the beam element.") The system evaluates the geometric representation to define contact edges, contact surfaces, and contact segments as contact entities ((Bout, Col 4, Lines 43-52) "Based on the determining the way a part is represented in the figure, the system determines edges, faces or segments. An edge is a line that connects two nodes that represents the beam or pipe element or is on the perimeter of the element. The contact edges are the collection of edges that enclose an object. A face is a region that bounds three or more nodes on the perimeter of the element. The contact faces are the collection of faces that enclose the volume of an object. A segment is a bounded region that represents where contact may occur."). Auxiliary points are assigned to contact segments and can be used to determine if two objects are in contact with one another and are thus interpreted as contact nodes. ((Bout, Col 4, Lines 1-2) "The auxiliary points discussed above basically define a local connection between two contact segments."). The simulated object is described as being manipulated in a computer system, thereby indicating that the beam element model is computer-based ((Bout, Col 11, Lines 65-67) "Upon receiving the model information, the CAD/CAE system 2210 may display the geometric model on the display device 2220.").
establishing a mesh [[based on the generated contact entities by connecting the contact nodes,]] the mesh representing entire surface geometry of the component of the real-world object; and A mesh of simulated objects is described ((Bout, Col 10, Lines 14-15) "The deformed mesh of the pipe-in-pipe object 1700 is shown in FIG. 17."), thereby indicating that the establishment of a mesh occurs. The mesh depiction in Figure 17 clearly displays a fully-visible meshed geometry characterizing the entire surface of the object.
PNG
media_image1.png
706
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
determining contact behavior of the real-world object by performing a computer-based simulation using the computer-based beam element model and the established mesh, wherein motion of the mesh, representing entire surface geometry of the component of the real-world object, [[is constrained to correspond to motion of the beam nodes.]] A simulation using CAE software (computer-based simulation) is performed on geometric representations of structures including beams and pipes (real world-objects) to determine contact behavior. ((Bout, Col 3, Lines 34-55) "The numerical simulation of beams and pipes are performed using three dimensional beam (3-D) elements in one embodiment. These elements as represented in FIGS. la and lb and are geometrically represented by either two or three nodes (e.g., nodes 1, 2, or 3), and these nodes in the finite element sense are described by their three coordinate positions X, Y and Z. Each node in FIG. la has six degrees of freedom Ux, Uy, Uz, 8x, 8y, and 8z. In certain formulations an additional degree of freedom representing the twist is also represented. The numerical behavior of these beams or pipes is governed by their shape functions. The technique described below is suitable for all three dimensional beam, pipe or other elements. Furthermore, these three dimensional representations are often simplified to represent two dimensional (2-D) beam or shell behavior. A user may simulate contact between two objects by using a computer-aided design (CAD) geometry for use in computer-aided engineering (CAE) modeling operations. The modeling operations include, but are not limited to determining a point of contact between objects in one embodiment. A user may apply external loads, prescribed motion, gravity, temperature or other external excitation on the objects."). The geometric representations of the structures are input as models to a segmentation computer to discretize the geometry and are depicted as meshes in Figures 17-19 during simulation where forces are applied. ((Bout, Col 11 Lines 61-67 and Col 12 Lines 1-8) "The CAD/CAE system 2210 may receive the geometric model information either from the user or from the storage device 2240. In some implementations, a third party may provide the model information. Upon receiving the model information, the CAD/CAE system 2210 may display the geometric model on the display device 2220. A user may choose to edit the objects within a geometric model. The objects may have vertices and edges that connect the vertices. The segmentation computer 2212 is configured to determine segments based on the shape of the simulated object. 5 The segmentation computer 2212 may determine the number of segments as discussed above with respect to FIGS. 1 through 21. Computer 2212 can be embodied as a module of software operating on one or more computer platforms."); ((Bout, Col 10, Lines 10-21) "To further demonstrate the above concepts a large deformation pipe in pipe simulation is shown in FIG. 17. Each pipe 1710 and 1720 is constructed out of 20 beams with a pipe cross section. A load is applied to the inner pipe at one end and the pipes are clamped on the other end. The deformed mesh of the pipe-in-pipe object 1700 is shown in FIG. 17. Also shown in FIG. 18 are the nodal force vectors 1730 from the contact and deformations. In one embodiment, the region of contact 1910 may be displayed in a different color as shown in FIG. 19. In another implementation, the color of the region of contact 1910 may be adjusted to show the amount of force being exerted or the amount of friction between the two pipes."). The simulated object is described as being manipulated in a computer system, thereby indicating that the beam element model is computer-based ((Bout, Col 11, Lines 65-67) "Upon receiving the model information, the CAD/CAE system 2210 may display the geometric model on the display device 2220."). During simulation deformation may occur that causes beam nodes to be updated by generalized nodal displacements, indicating motion of the beam nodes ((Bout, Col 9, Lines 8-11) “During the simulation a deformation may occur due to an applied load, boundary conditions and contact conditions such that the coordinate position of nodes 1 and 2 are updated by the generalized nodal displacements"). Segment points are governed by multipoint constraints between nodes, thereby indicating that segment points are constrained to correspond to beam nodes, wherein the beam nodes are subject to motion during deformation as stated previously ((Bout, Col 9 Lines 16-19) "The updated coordinates of the segment points are governed by the multi-point constraint between nodes 1 and segment points A and D and the one constraint between node 2 and segment points B and C."). A segment is described as being defined by segment points ((Bout, Col 6, Lines 65-67 and Col 7, Lines 1-3) "A typical segment of beam 1401 defined by segment points labeled as ABCD can be defined such that the original position is (Xl + VA), (X2+ VB), (X2+ V c), (Xl + V n) where X 1, X2 are the nodal positions of the original beam nodes and VA, VD are the vectors from node 1 to A and D, and VB, V c are the vectors from node 2 to B and C.").The segments are described in the reference as characterizing the surface of a simulated object ((Bout, Col 10, Lines 25-30) "At step 2001, the system generates a first simulated object represented by a beam finite element each comprising two or more nodes that represent a first physical object, the first simulated object comprising a plurality of segments placed adjacent to each other to form a surface of the first simulated object"). The surface of a simulated object is represented as a mesh (wherein a mesh would be understood by one having skill in the art as a discretized geometry) for finite element analysis purposes which contains segments, as depicted in Figs 7a and 7b ((Bout, Col 5, Lines 12-20) "FIGS. 7a and 7b show an example representation of two different objects 700 and 750 in a three dimensional representation. In FIG. 7a, a surface 710 is highlighted surrounded by 4 nodes ( 4, 5, 7 and 8). FIG. 7 b shows a highlighted surface 760 on the object 750 shown in three dimensional form. The highlighted portions of the objects 700 and 750 shown in FIGS. 7a and 7b may be referred to as segments and the contact between the segments may be determined using the methods described in FIG. 5."), See also Figure 17 and explicit recitation of describing the mesh deformation ((Bout, Col 10, Lines 14-15) "The deformed mesh of the pipe-in-pipe object 1700 is shown in FIG. 17."). The mesh depiction in Figure 17 clearly displays a fully-visible meshed geometry characterizing the entire surface of the object.
Bout does not disclose; however SimuTech Group discloses establishing a mesh based on the generated contact entities by connecting the contact nodes, A contact match mesh is generated wherein nodes of the contact regions are matched between two geometric elements ((SimuTech Group, 1:58) " …so if i were to say if i wanted to make the nodes on the gray flat part to match up perfectly with the nodes on the contact region on this green part I would set the slave as this face and then the master as the bottom of this part here so these nodes would be modified whereas the nodes on the bottom of this part would not so i'll go ahead and define that now we'll set our slave to be that face right and then we will find that body and we'll set our master to be that face and we'll show all bodies and right click on contact match and click generate and that will generate that mesh edit for us.. "). From the image taken from 3:12 of the reference video, it can be seen that the nodes of the contact mesh of the slave and the master surfaces are connected such that they share contact nodes.
PNG
media_image2.png
923
1473
media_image2.png
Greyscale
SimuTech Group is analogous art to the claimed invention because it is related to the same field of endeavor of modeling contact using simulations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have implemented the contact match mesh control as discloses by SimuTech Group because some teaching, suggestion, or motivation would have led one having ordinary skill in the art to do so in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Bout discloses the utilization of a mesh in a simulation but does not particularly disclose how the mesh is generated. SimuTech Group provides an approach by which to mesh two distinct geometric elements and touts the benefits of doing so using the contact match mesh control method as being an approach that “improve[s] the uniformity of the contact pressure” in simulations (See timestamps 0:45-1:07 of reference.) . Accordingly, the combination would have been obvious.
While the proposed combination suggests a relationship between the constrained nodes and the mesh, the proposed combination does not explicitly disclose constraining the motion of the mesh to correspond to the motion of the beam nodes. However, the proposed combination in further view of Monaghan discloses a coupling of 2D beams to 3D bodies to demonstrate continuum elements of a mesh is constrained to correspond to motion of the beam nodes. ((Monaghan, Page 5, ¶1) "This equation can also be applied as a linear constraint equation in the finite element model (e.g. applied in ABAQUS as a *EQUATION command). The effect of this equation is to couple the displacements of the 3D continuum nodes on the interface to the twisting rotation of the beam node such that the distribution of shear stress on the interface is the same as that given by the St. Venant torsion analysis of the beam cross-section.").
Monaghan is analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor which is modeling beams accurately in FEM and simulation applications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have combined the prior art references to include the teachings of Monaghan because some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art references would have led one having skill in the art to do so. Bout discloses segment points being governed by a multipoint constraint between nodes, wherein segments are further described as characterizing the surface of an object. However, Bout does not explicitly disclose the surface of the object necessarily being the mesh. Monaghan discloses the coupling of 1D Beams as beam nodes to 3D bodies such that displacements and rotations of the beam element are accurately representing in the 3D continuum elements representing the material of the model (as the mesh). The method is described as being enabling of proper 3D representation (meshes) of simulated objects with the benefits of dimensionally-reduced computation (by leveraging the reduced dimension models of the beam). ((Monaghan, Page 7, ¶1) "The cross-sectional analyses can also be used to generate 6 multipoint constraint equations linking the displacements and rotations of the beam element to the nodal displacements of the 3D continuum elements representing the material adjacent to the slender area of the model represented by the beam element. This greatly facilitates mixeddimensional modelling, where 3D details such as joints, changes in section or loading are properly represented, but dimensionally-reduced beam elements are used to model slender parts (economically and accurately), where 3D elements are expensive and potentially ill-conditioned."). Accordingly, the combination would have been obvious to one having skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, the proposed combination discloses The method of Claim 1 wherein connecting the contact nodes comprises: as stated previously. The proposed combination in view of SimuTech Group discloses instantiating connections between the contact nodes. Node pairs are generated during the contact match meshing operation on nodes, thereby indicating that instances of the connections are generated ((SimuTech Group, Timestamp 2:51) "…right click on contact match and click generate and that will generate that mesh edit for us and it says mesh matching operation mesh matching operation match 38 node pairs so if we go to mesh ")
Regarding claim 3, the proposed combination discloses The method of Claim 1 as stated previously. The proposed combination in further view of SimuTech Group discloses wherein connecting the contact nodes comprises: connecting the contact nodes in a tessellated pattern. Nodes of each mesh that are connected are depicted and the mesh comprises triangular tessellations (See timestamp 3:13)
PNG
media_image3.png
860
1464
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the proposed combination discloses The method of Claim 1 as stated previously. The proposed combination in further view of Bout discloses wherein automatically generating contact entities includes setting locations of the contact nodes based on the cross-sectional geometry. The geometric representation that includes contact information is generated by the system, and no pre-cursory or intervening steps are disclosed, indicating that the system generates the geometric representation automatically. ((Bout, Col 10, Lines 47-52) "At step 2101, the system generates a geometric representation of a first stimulated object that comprises a plurality of segments. At step 2103, the system may generate a second stimulated physical object with a region detected to be in contact with the first stimulated object."). Segments are created based on cross-sectional geometry ((Bout, Col 6 Lines 23-25) "At block 925, the number of determined segments may be created based on the beam nodal coordinates, average nodal normal, and offset beam cross section geometry."). Auxiliary points are assigned locations on segments ((Bout, Col 7, Lines 5-6) "At step 1501, auxiliary points may be assigned to the segments shown in FIG. 16."); ((Bout, Col 3, Lines 12-13) "FIG. 16 is a schematic drawing showing auxiliary point locations on a segment."). Auxiliary points define a connection between two contact segments and are thus interpreted as contact nodes ((Bout, Col 8, Lines 1-2) "The auxiliary points discussed above basically define a local connection between two contact segments.").
Regarding claim 5, the proposed combination discloses The method of Claim 1 wherein establishing the mesh includes: as stated previously. The proposed combination in view of Bout discloses (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[..]])) connecting contact entities generated based on a first cross-sectional geometry with corresponding contact entities generated based on a second cross-sectional geometry. Contact nodes of the mesh are connected based on the surfaces of two geometries with a master/slave relationship, wherein the geometry surface could be considered a superficial cross section of the geometric object. ((SimuTech Group, Timestamp 1:25 ) " so another thing we can do is actually use a mesh edit particularly a a contact match mesh edit to modify the nodes on one side of the contact region to match the uh or on the on the target to match the um the contact side "); ((SimuTech Group, Timetamp 1:52) " we'll insert a contact match and we see we have two properties we have to fill out the geometry scopings uh one called master geometry one called slave so if i were to say if i wanted to make the nodes on the gray flat part to match up perfectly with the nodes on the contact region on this green part I would set the slave as this face and then the master as the bottom of this part here so these nodes would be modified whereas the nodes on the bottom of this part would not so i'll go ahead and define that now we'll set our slave to be that face right and then we will find that body and we'll set our master to be that face and we'll show all bodies and right click on contact match and click generate and that will generate that mesh edit for us"). The screenshots depict where the slave and the master geometries are selected for contact match meshing, wherein the surface of the rectangular object is set as the slave and the bottom of the cylindrical object is set as the master, such that the surfaces of the objects are representative of a cross section of each geometry.
PNG
media_image4.png
930
1466
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
918
1468
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
862
1477
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, the proposed combination discloses The method of Claim 1 as stated previously. The proposed combination in further view of Bout discloses wherein the component of the real-world object is a first component and determining the contact behavior of the real-world object comprises: A simulated physical object is a distinguished component (referred to as the second instance of a simulated objects). ((Bout, Col 1, Lines 30-34) "Next at step 2003 , the system generate a second simulated object that represents a second physical object, the second simulated object comprising a plurality of segments placed adjacent to each other to form a surface of the second simulated object.")
receiving a finite element model of a second component; and A finite element model is generated and provided to the simulation system and is a distinguished component (referred to as the first instance of the simulated objects) ((Bout, Col 10, lines 25-29) "At step 2001, the system generates a first simulated object represented by a beam finite element each comprising two or more nodes that represent a first physical object, the first simulated object comprising a plurality of segments placed adjacent to each other to form a surface of the first simulated object").
performing the computer-based simulation using the computer-based beam element model, the established mesh, and the received finite element model of the second component to determine the contact behavior of the real-world object in response to contacting the second component. A method is disclosed for performing contact analysis simulations on representations of physical objects to determine a stiffness matrix that characterizes the contact behavior. The simulation uses the polygons of the mesh, a geometric model of a beam element, and the finite element model in the calculations for the simulation. (Bout, Figure 15, Figure 20, Figure 21); ((Bout, Col 3, Lines 9-11 ¶) “FIG. 15 is a flow diagram illustrating a process that is used to analyze contact between beams, pipes or other objects in accordance with an exemplary embodiment"); ((Bout, Col 7, Lines 4-25) " FIG. 15 shows a process that is used to analyze contact between beams, pipe or other objects. At step 1501, auxiliary points may be assigned to the segments shown in FIG. 16. In one embodiment, the auxiliary point may represent the corners of the segment or points that define the segment. At step 1503, distance between the auxiliary points of one segment compared to the auxiliary points of another segment is determined. At step 1505, poly lines (for two dimensional) or polygons (for three dimensional) are created based on the projection of segments which are in close proximity with one another. At step 1507, a computer system may determine if one polygon is in contact with another polygon. When the polygons are in contact with each other, at step 1509, a stiffness matrix is calculated between the polygons that are in contact with each other. At step 1511 friction is detected between the two polygons. At step 1513, the polygon contribution of the stiffness matrix and force vectors to the segment 20 points on the segment is calculated. An example method of calculating is discussed in greater detail below. At step 1515, the stiffness matrix and force vector are transformed from segment points to nodal points of the object using the Rigid Body Element, (RBE2) method"); A part represented by the geometric model can include a beam element (Bout, Figure 5); ((Bout, Col 4, lines 31-33) "Next, at block 501 the system determines whether a beam is represented in the CAD tool environment with a plurality of segments."); ((Bout, Col 4, Lines 61-64) "At block 517, if the part is represented as a beam element, then the part may be represented in an expanded mode that comprises segments that combine to make the beam element"); ((Bout, Col 10, Lines ) "Next at step 2005, the processor may determine the distance between individual segments of the first simulated object and the plurality of segments of the second simulated object. At step 2007, the system may determine a stiffness matrix and force vectors for the at least one segment of the first simulated object that is in contact with at least one segment of the second simulated object. At step 2009, the system may transform the stiffness matrix and the force vectors from the segments to determine a stiffness matrix and a force vector on the nodes of the finite element representation of the physical objects."). The simulation is described as being executed by a CAD/CAE system, wherein the CAD/CAE system comprises a computer and therefore the simulation is a computer-based simulation (See Bout Figure 122). The simulated object is described as being manipulated in a computer system, thereby indicating that the beam element model is computer-based ((Bout, Col 11, Lines 65-67) "Upon receiving the model information, the CAD/CAE system 2210 may display the geometric model on the display device 2220.").
Regarding claim 10 Bout discloses A computer-aided design (CAD) system for simulating a real-world object to determine contact behavior of the real-world object, the system comprising: A data processing system is disclosed that contains a CAD/CAE system within (Bout, Figure 22, Item, 2210). A method implemented on the CAD/CAE system is used to determine contact forces and contact stress ((Bout, Col 9, Lines 52-59) "The solution also includes contact forces between the beams and/or pipes with other beams and/or pipes or other deformable or rigid bodies. The solution may include the Contact stresses between the beams and/or pipes with other beams and/or pipes or other deformable or rigid bodies. These quantities are obtained based upon the relative displacement of the segments, the stiffness matrix and the area of the segments.").
a processor; and A processor is disclosed as part of the system (Bout, Figure 22, Item 2230)
a memory with computer code instructions stored thereon, the processor and the memory, with the computer code instructions, being configured to cause the system to: Computer storage with encoded computer program instructions executed by a data processing apparatus is disclosed. ((Bout, Col 12, Lines 59-64) "Embodiments of the subject matter described in this specification can be implemented as one or more computer programs, i.e., one or more modules of computer program instructions, encoded on computer storage medium for execution by, or to control the operation of, data processing apparatus.")
The remaining limitations: create, in the memory, a computer-based beam element model representing a component of a real-world object, the computer-based beam element model comprising beam nodes;
automatically generate contact entities based on a cross-sectional geometry of the component of the real-world object and the created computer-based beam element model, wherein the generated contact entities include contact nodes of the computer-based beam element model;
establish a mesh based on the generated contact entities by connecting the contact nodes, the mesh representing entire surface geometry of the component of the real-world object; and
determine contact behavior of the real-world object by performing a computer-based simulation using the computer-based beam element model and the established mesh, wherein motion of the mesh, representing entire surface geometry of the component of the real-world object, is constrained to correspond to motion of the beam nodes. are substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and are thus rejected under the same rationale as provided for claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations: The system of Claim 10 wherein in connecting the contact nodes, the processor and the memory, with the computer code instructions, are further configured to cause the system to:
instantiate connections between the contact nodes. are substantially similar to that of claim 2 but with respect to claim 10. Therefore, the proposed combination teaches the limitations as stated previously and the claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations: The system of Claim 10 wherein, in automatically generating contact entities, the processor and the memory, with the computer code instructions, are further configured to cause the system to:
set locations of the contact nodes based on the cross-sectional geometry. are substantially similar to that of claim 4 but with respect to claim 10. Therefore, the proposed combination teaches the limitations as stated previously and the claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations: The system of Claim 10 wherein, in establishing the mesh, the processor and the memory, with the computer code instructions, are further configured to cause the system to:
connect generated contact entities of a first cross-sectional geometry with corresponding generated contact entities of a second cross-sectional geometry. are substantially similar to that of claim 5 but with respect to claim 10. Therefore, the proposed combination teaches the limitations as stated previously and the claim is rejected under the same rationale
Regarding claim 14, the proposed combination discloses The system of Claim 13 wherein, in establishing the mesh, the processor and the memory, with the computer code instructions, are further configured to cause the system to: as stated previously.
The proposed combination in further view of SimuTech Group discloses tessellate the mesh between the first and second cross-sectional geometries. Contact nodes of the mesh are connected based on the surfaces of two geometries with a master/slave relationship, wherein the geometry surface could be considered a superficial cross section of the geometric object. ((SimuTech Group, Timestamp 1:25 ) " so another thing we can do is actually use a mesh edit particularly a a contact match mesh edit to modify the nodes on one side of the contact region to match the uh or on the on the target to match the um the contact side "); ((SimuTech Group, Timetamp 1:52) " we'll insert a contact match and we see we have two properties we have to fill out the geometry scopings uh one called master geometry one called slave so if i were to say if i wanted to make the nodes on the gray flat part to match up perfectly with the nodes on the contact region on this green part I would set the slave as this face and then the master as the bottom of this part here so these nodes would be modified whereas the nodes on the bottom of this part would not so i'll go ahead and define that now we'll set our slave to be that face right and then we will find that body and we'll set our master to be that face and we'll show all bodies and right click on contact match and click generate and that will generate that mesh edit for us"). The screenshots depict where the slave and the master geometries are selected for contact match meshing, wherein the surface of the rectangular object is set as the slave and the bottom of the cylindrical object is set as the master, such that the surfaces of the objects are representative of a cross section of each geometry.
PNG
media_image4.png
930
1466
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
918
1468
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
862
1477
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Nodes of each mesh that are connected are depicted and the mesh comprises triangular tessellations (See timestamp 3:13)
PNG
media_image3.png
860
1464
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, the limitations: The system of Claim 10 wherein the component of the real-world object is a first component and, in determining the contact behavior of the real-world object, the processor and the memory, with the computer code instructions, are further configured to cause the system to:
receive a finite element model of a second component; and
perform the computer-based simulation using the computer-based beam element model, the established mesh, and the received finite element model of the second component to determine the contact behavior of the real-world object in response to contacting the second component. are substantially similar to that of claim 9 but with respect to claim 10. Therefore, Bout teaches the limitations as stated previously and the claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 19, Bout discloses A computer program product for simulating a real-world object to determine contact behavior of the real-world object, the computer program product comprising: A stiffness matrix determination computer is disclosed, whereby the stiffness matrix characterizes the contact behavior of a physical object. The stiffness matrix determination computer may be a software module (computer program product) ((Bout, Col 12, Lines 19-24) "The stiffness matrix determination computer 2216 may calculate a stiffness matrix based on the output determined by the distance determination computer 2215 as discuss above with respect to FIG. 1 through 21. Computer 2216 can be embodied as a module of software operating on one or more computer platforms"); ((Bout, Col 10, Lines 41-44) " At step 2009, the system may transform the stiffness matrix and the force vectors from the segments to determine a stiffness matrix and a force vector on the nodes of the finite element representation of the physical objects."); ((Bout, Col 3, Lines 9-11 ¶) “FIG. 15 is a flow diagram illustrating a process that is used to analyze contact between beams, pipes or other objects in 10 accordance with an exemplary embodiment")
a non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-readable program instructions stored thereon, the instructions, when executed by a processor, causing the processor to: A non-transitory storage media configured to store information and communicate to the processor that executes instructions to perform the disclosed methodology is described ((Bout, Col 11, Lines 39-47) "The storage device 2240 may include a memory such as a random access memory (RAM) or other dynamic storage devices. In another implementation, the storage device 2240 may also include non-transitory storage media that is configured to store information regarding the geometric model and the finite element model that is being currently modified or was created in the past. The storage device 2240 may send or receive data to or from the processor 2230 and each of the other systems in the system 2210."); ((Bout, Col 12, Lines 59-64) "Embodiments of the subject matter described in this specification can be implemented as one or more computer programs, i.e., one or more modules of computer program instructions, encoded on computer storage medium for execution by, or to control the operation of, data processing apparatus.")
create, in a database, a computer-based beam element model representing a component of a real-world object, the computer-based beam element model comprising beam nodes; A database management system is disclosed as a possible inclusion of the data processing apparatus, indicating database capabilities within the system ((Bout, Col 13, Lines 24-30) "The apparatus can also include, in addition to hardware, code that creates an execution environment for the computer program in question, e.g., code that constitutes processor firmware, a protocol stack, a database management system, an operating system, a crossplatform runtime environment, a virtual machine, or a combination of one or more of them."). A storage device is used to store a geometric model ((Bout, Col 11, Lines 41-45) "In another implementation, the storage device 2240 may also include non-transitory storage media that is configured to store information regarding the geometric model and the finite element model that is being currently modified or was created in the past."). Figure 3a and 3b show the geometric model of beam or pipe elements, where beams and pipes are real-world objects and the elements include nodal points as beam nodes ((Bout, Col 4, Lines 1-9) " FIGS. 3a and 3b shows the modeling of beam or pipe elements that include a definition of the cross-section orientation of the cross section with respect to the length and the global coordinate system (shown as x, y, and z). For each element along the part there is an orientation VE which is a directional cosine with respect to the global coordinate system. At the nodal points 301 and 303 there may be multiple orientations based upon the elements that are connected to the nodal points 301 and 303."); (Bout, Figures 3a and 3b). A part represented by the geometric model can include a beam element (Bout, Figure 5); ((Bout, Col 4, lines 31-33) "Next, at block 501 the system determines whether a beam is represented in the CAD tool environment with a plurality of segments."); ((Bout, Col 4, Lines 61-64) "At block 517, if the part is represented as a beam element, then the part may be represented in an expanded mode that comprises segments that combine to make the beam element"). The simulated object is described as being manipulated in a computer system, thereby indicating that the beam element model is computer-based ((Bout, Col 11, Lines 65-67) "Upon receiving the model information, the CAD/CAE system 2210 may display the geometric model on the display device 2220.").
The remaining limitations: automatically generate contact entities based on a cross-sectional geometry of the component of the real-world object and the created computer-based beam element model, wherein the generated contact entities include contact nodes of the computer-based beam element model;
establish a mesh based on the generated contact entities by connecting the contact nodes, the mesh representing entire surface geometry of the component of the real-world object; and
determine contact behavior of the real-world object by performing a computer-based simulation using the computer-based beam element model and the established mesh, wherein motion of the mesh, representing entire surface geometry of the component of the real-world object, is constrained to correspond to motion of the beam nodes. are substantially similar to that of claim 1. Therefore, the proposed combination teaches the limitations as stated previously and the claim is rejected under the same rationale
Regarding claim 20, the limitations: The computer program product of Claim 19 wherein the instructions cause the processor to (i) automatically generate the contact entities by setting locations of the contact nodes based on the cross-sectional geometry, and (ii) connect the contact nodes by instantiating connections between the contact nodes. are substantially similar to a combination of claims 2 and 4 but with respect to claim 19. Therefore, the proposed combination teaches the limitations as stated previously and the claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 6-7, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the proposed combination as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Magnard (Magnard, Remi, "How to Analyze Beam Sections Using the Beam Section Calculator", Feb 28, 2017, COMSOL Blog, https://www.comsol.com/blogs/how-to-analyze-beam-sections-using-the-beam-section-calculator), hereinafter referred to as Magnard.
Regarding claim 6, the proposed combination discloses The method of Claim 1 as stated previously. The proposed combination does not disclose; however Magnard discloses comprising receiving a user indication of the cross-sectional geometry in form of a keyword. A GUI input containing a keyword to describe a beam shape is depicted, where a user can indicate the cross-sectional geometry of the beam
PNG
media_image7.png
194
603
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Magnard is analogous because it is related to the same field of endeavor of 3-D modeling and CAE software. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have implemented utilizing receiving indication from a user of the cross sectional geometry via a GUI as taught by Magnard into the CAD/CAE software described by Bout because the geometry of the beam affects other parameters and subsequentially affects outcomes of models undergoing simulation ((Magnard) "In the Designation section of the app, we choose the beam type through a multilevel sequence of steps. When we choose a beam standard, it updates the list of beam shapes. This in turn affects the beam types, as there are different types available for each shape. Once we’ve selected a type, we pick the beam designation from the look-up table, shown below, and make the beam units either imperial or metric."). Combining the prior art references according to known methods would, as such, yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, the proposed combination discloses The method of Claim 6 further comprising: as stated previously. The proposed combination in further view of Magnard discloses
providing a drop-down menu, the drop-down menu displaying a plurality of keywords, or representations thereof, wherein the user indication of the cross-sectional geometry is received via a user selection from the drop-down menu of the keyword from among the plurality of keywords. A drop-down menu is depicted by Magnard showing a keyword whereby the user can select a cross-sectional geometry as a beam shape indication.
PNG
media_image7.png
194
603
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Magnard lists a plurality of Beam shapes that may be used by the disclosed software and would therefore be considered within the dropdown menu shown above. ((Magnard) "The Beam Section Calculator provides data for about 9000 beam sections from American and European standards. The table below shows a few of the available beam section types."); (Magnard, Table 1), shown below.
PNG
media_image8.png
796
569
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Magnard is analogous as stated previously. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have utilized the drop-down menu format to present keywords of cross-sectional geometries for user selection because there are a finite number of standardized ways to receive input from a user via a GUI with reasonable predictability and success. Of the available options for acquiring user input into a GUI, it would have been obvious try the drop-down menu format for selecting from a specified list of possible inputs to indicate desired parameters of models of interest.
Regarding claim 15, The system of Claim 10 wherein the processor and the memory, with the computer code instructions, are further configured to cause the system to: is taught by the proposed combination as stated previously for the rejection of Claim 10. The remaining limitation:
receive a user indication of the cross-sectional geometry in a form of a keyword. is substantially similar to the limitation recited in claim 6 but with respect to claim 10 and thus the claim is rejected under the same rationale as provided previously as being obvious over the proposed combination in view of Magnard.
Regarding claim 16, The system of Claim 15 further comprising: is taught by the proposed combination, as stated previously for the rejection of claim 15. The remaining limitations:
a graphical display device configured to provide a drop-down menu, the dropdown menu including keywords, or representations thereof; and
wherein the processor and the memory, with the computer code instructions, are further configured to cause the system to receive the user indication of the cross-sectional geometry via a user selection from the drop-down menu. are substantially similar to those recited in claim 7 but with respect to claim 15 and thus the claim is rejected under the same rationale as provided previously over the proposed combination.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the proposed combination as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Singh et Al. (Singh, A. V., Zheng, Y., “On finite element analysis of beams with random material properties”, October 2003, Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, Volume 18, Issue 4, Pages 273-278), hereinafter referred to as Singh.
Regarding claim 8, the proposed combination discloses The method of Claim 1 as stated previously. The proposed combination in further view of Bout discloses (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[..]])) where the beam nodes include a pair of beam nodes and, wherein creating the computer-based beam element model comprises: A beam is described as including two pairs of beam nodes ((Bout, Col 9, Lines 35-39) "The stiffness matrix [K] and the force on segment A-B-C-D is transformed to beam nodes 1 and 2 and the stiffness and force associated with segment E-F-G-H are transformed to beam nodes 3 and 4 using the RBE2 constraint equations"); See also Figure 14 depicting beam nodes on the beam element model. The simulated object is described as being manipulated in a computer system, thereby indicating that the beam element model is computer-based ((Bout, Col 11, Lines 65-67) "Upon receiving the model information, the CAD/CAE system 2210 may display the geometric model on the display device 2220.").
defining an edge between the pair of beam nodes; and An edge is described as a line that connects two nodes that represent the beam element ((Bout, Col 4, Lines 43-47) "Based on the determining the way a part is represented in the figure, the system determines edges, faces or segments. An edge is a line that connects two nodes that represents the beam or pipe element or is on the perimeter of the element.")
[[defining a material that comprises the component represented by the computer-based beam element model.]]
Bout does not teach; however, Singh teaches defining a material that comprises the component represented by the computer-based beam element model A material property is defined for a beam ((Singh, Page 278, Col 1, Section 4, ¶1) "The linear elastic response of beams with random material properties and deterministic static loads is examined in this study using the displacement based finite element method. The material property is defined in terms of the constant mean value as well as the fluctuating part defined by a random function."). The beam is a component that is represented by a finite element model, wherein the finite element model is utilized as part of a computer program code and thereby indicates that the beam element model is computer-based (See Singh Figures 2 and 3); ((Singh, Page 276, Col 2, Section 3, ¶1) "A computer program has been written following the procedure described above to study the response variability of a beam under static deterministic loading. To validate the procedure, numerical results are calculated for a beam shown in Fig. 3.")
Singh is analogous because it is related to finite element analyses of beam elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have considered the material properties of the beam as taught by Singh in the simulation system taught by the proposed combination because the material properties of beams are important in order to perform accurate analyses and providing the beam material is standard practice in the art for finite element analysis ((Singh, Section 1) "The use of the finite element method in the design of structural and machine components is now universally accepted as a standard practice. Many computer codes have been developed in the sixties and seventies for this purpose and they are continually upgraded and maintained by the design and analysis group of medium-to-large size companies. It is fair to say that almost all problems involving either the stress or the vibration analysis can be dealt with without difficulties as there is a rapid growth in the speed and storage capacity of digital computers. Yet, the analysis performed today mainly deals with structures having deterministic material and geometric parameters. The random time dependent loads within the deterministic FE formulation can be dealt quite straightforwardly. The material and geometric properties of a structure have very significant role in the analysis. Therefore, any alteration in their values considerably changes the calculated response of the structure. There is a number of practical cases for which the geometric and/or material properties do change with time as well as the environment in which the structure is expected to perform."); ((Singh, Section 4) "For the analysis of beams, the inter-element correlation of the material property function f(x) must be considered.").
Regarding claim 17, The system of Claim 10 wherein the beam nodes include a pair of beam nodes and wherein, in creating the computer-based beam element model, the processor and the memory, with the computer code instructions, are further configured to cause the system to: is taught by the proposed combination as stated previously for the rejection of Claim 10.
The remaining limitations: define an edge between the pair of the beam nodes; and
define a material comprising the component represented by the computer-based beam element model. are substantially similar to the limitations claimed in claim 8 but with respect to claim 10 and thus the claim is rejected under the same rationale as provided previously over the same proposed combination of references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sundaram et al (US Patent No 10121279 B1) discloses a system and method for mesh generation wherein contact is considered as part of the mesh generation to establish continuous conformal meshes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY GORMAN LEATHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-1880. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5:00 pm 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, EMERSON PUENTE can be reached at (571) 272-3652. 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.
/E.G.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187