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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/11/2025 has been entered.
2. The amendment filed 11/11/2025 has been received and considered. Claims 1-14 and 16-19 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
3. Claims 1, 8-11, 13-14, and 16-19 are rejected re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (“A Hybrid 3DRD Finite Element Technique for Polymer Processing Operations”), in view of Yu et al. (US 20120059637 A1), and further in view of Tseng et al. (US 9573307 B1) and Autodesk (“Setting up an Autodesk Moldflow Insight Analysis To Match an Actual Molding Process”).
As per Claim 1 and 18-19, Yu et al. teaches a computer-implemented method/system/program for simulating a filling process of a mold cavity in an injection molding process using a plastic material (Introduction, “CAD/CAE packages”), the method comprising:
i) discretizing at least a part of a simulated mold cavity of the mold cavity into a plurality of cells (Fig. 1 “3D domain and a 2D domain”);
ii) defining a cavity injection point (Fig. 1 “Flow in”
PNG
media_image1.png
195
483
media_image1.png
Greyscale
);
iii) determining a surface normal direction perpendicular to the nearest cavity surface for each cell (Fig. 1 “Z direction”);
iv) determining a cell coordinate system for each cell (Fig. 1 “a 3D domain and a 2D domain, and a Cartesian coordinate system”), defined by
- a first principal direction parallel to a flow direction (Fig. 1
PNG
media_image1.png
195
483
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, y-direction),
-a third principal direction parallel to the normal direction (Fig. 1, z-direction), and
- a second principal direction perpendicular to the first and third principal directions (Fig. 1, x-direction); and
v) determining the flow direction of a mold flow for each cell (Fig. 1 “Flow in”).
Yu et al. fails to teach explicitly determining neighboring cells for each cell of the plurality of cells; by determining a flow front advance and a flow front velocity of the simulated mold cavity;
determining a pressure level of the mold flow based on one or more properties of a molten mass of the mold flow;
stopping the flow front advance in response to the pressure level being higher than a predetermined pressure threshold;
vii) outputting at least one visualization of a simulated filling process, wherein the visualization is output via at least one interface or port; and
filling the model cavity with a formless material by applying pressure on the formless material based on the simulated filling process.
Yu et al. (US 20120059637 A1) teaches determining neighboring cells for each cell of the plurality of cells ([0035]-[0036] “Among the set of cells e.sup.i's immediately outside the flow front, a particular cell e.sup.k can be identified having the smallest flow-length parameter. This particular cell can be selected as the first cell to be added to the flow domain from among the set of cells e.sup.i's immediately outside the flow front. In some instances, the addition of cell e.sup.k to the flow domain can add additional cells that are now immediately outside the revised flow front. ”);
by determining a flow front advance and a flow front velocity of the simulated mold cavity ([0031]-[0034] “average velocity of the melt across the gap of the cavity”; “a potential filling pattern can be determined based on assumptions derived for the model. A filling pattern can identify the position of the flow front at regular intervals as the cavity fills.”);
determining a pressure level of the mold flow based on one or more properties of a molten mass of the mold flow ([0031], [0044] “calculate characteristics and parameters of the simulated injection molding such as the pressure required to fill mold cavity, pressure distribution at the end of filling stage,”);
vii) outputting at least one visualization of a simulated filling process, wherein the visualization is output via at least one interface or port (Fig. 1, [0023], [0035], [0044] “the determined filling pattern can be graphically presented to a user to assist the user in appreciating the character of the calculated fill pattern.”; “GUI can present the CAD cavity model shaded according to, for example, temperature distribution, or pressure distribution across the cavity.”).
In particular, Yu et al. (US 20120059637 A1) teaches a visualized simulating an injection mold model ([0035], Fig. 1) by determination of the potential fill pattern based on selecting a particular cell from among the set of cells immediately outside the flow front ([0035]-[0036] ) (corresponding to the claimed limitation “determining neighboring cells…”) and by identifying position of the flow front at regular intervals as the cavity fills using an average velocity of the melt ([0031]-[0036])(corresponding to the claimed limitation “a flow front advance and a flow front velocity of the mold cavity”).
Further, Tseng et al. teaches filling the model cavity with a formless material by applying pressure on the formless material based on the simulated filling process (Fig. 19B element 45->47; Fig 19 C element 67->69, Col. 10 lines 2-22, Col. 17 lines 25-34). In particular, Tseng et al. teaches the molding machine with a controller configured to control the operation of the molding machine (Fig. 5) for performing a real molding process by using the molding conditions that are obtained by the simulation (Fig. 19B-19C).
Yu et al., Yu et al. (US 20120059637 A1) and Tseng et al. are analogous art because they are all from the same field of endeavor, injection molding simulation/modeling.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teaching of Yu et al. (US 20120059637 A1) and Tseng et al. with the polymeric fluid simulation of motions for various polymer processing operations of Yu et al. to provide a system that optimizes a mold cavity design in order to produce the most commercially-acceptable product (Yu et al. (US 20120059637 A1): [0003]) and to perform a real molding process by the molding machine by using the accurate modeling condition (Tseng et al.: Col. 46-62, Col. 6 lines 4-12).
However, Yu et al. as modified by Yu et al. (US 20120059637 A1) and Tseng et al. fails to teach explicitly stopping the flow front advance in response to the pressure level being higher than a predetermined pressure threshold.
Furthermore, Autodesk teaches stopping the flow front advance in response to the pressure level being higher than a predetermined pressure threshold (Pg 25-26, Figure 21, “Once the simulation reaches the limit, the solver will slow the flow rate to maintain the pressure. In severe cases, a short shot will result”). In particular, Autodesk teaches a pressure limited simulation feature where the flow front advance stops before the cavity is completely filled (Pg 25).
Yu et al., Yu et al. (US 20120059637 A1), Tseng et al., and Autodesk are analogous art because they are all from the same field of endeavor, injection molding simulation/modeling. The motivation to combine Autodesk’s pressure-limited simulation capability is to ensure realistic machine pressure constraints to identify short-shot conditions before committing to physical production as it is important to ensure the molding machine definition has the machine’s pressure limit defined (Pg 21).
As per Claim 8, Yu et al. teaches wherein the method further comprises determining neighboring cells for each individual cell of the plurality of cells (Fig. 1 “boundary conditions” at “3D domain and a 2D domain”).
As per Claim 9, Yu et al. fails to teach explicitly wherein the method further comprises determining a cell-filling sequence using information on the neighboring cells.
Yu et al. (US 20120059637 A1) teaches wherein the method further comprises determining a cell-filling sequence using information on the neighboring cells ([0036]).
As per Claim 10, Yu et al. teaches wherein the method comprises a recursive determination of an inflow of a molten mass of the plastic material from neighboring cells for each individual cell (left column on Pg 46, Fig. 2 “(b) Conservation of mass for an incompressible fluid”, “the net inflow on the 2D boundary”).
As per Claim 11, Yu et al. teaches wherein the method comprises recursively solving a continuity equation for each individual cell by considering inflow from neighboring cells and outflow into neighboring cells (left column on Pg 46, “the left-hand side is the net oufflow from the 3D boundary, which is obtained by integrating the continuity equation, or Eq 3, in the 3D domain. The righthand side is the net inflow on the 2D boundary, which is obtained by integrating the continuity equation, or Eq 7, in the 2D domain”).
As per Claim 13, Yu et al. fails to teach explicitly wherein the method further comprises determining a wall thickness information for each of the cells of the plurality of cells.
Yu et al. (US 20120059637 A1) teaches wherein the method further comprises determining a wall thickness information for each of the cells of the plurality of cells ([0030] “With the geometry of the mold cavity subdivided into a mesh, the local thickness of each cell or element can then be calculated.”).
As per Claim 14, Yu et al. teaches wherein performing at least steps i) to v) of the method takes a processing time T, wherein 0 second <T< 300 second (right column on Pg 48 “for the 3D/2D mesh…the CPU time per iteration saved can be as high as 40%”, Examiner’s note: it is determined that the limitation is directed to printed matter, and there is no a functional relationship can be found. No patentable weight was given as per MPEP 2111.05.).
As per Claim 16, Yu et al. teaches a method for further verifying a design of an object, the method comprising:
IV. simulating a filling process of the mold cavity by using the method according to claim 1 (Pg 46-51, simulation of “Coat-Ranger Die”); and
V. evaluating a simulation result provided by step IV (Pg 46-51, Table 2 and Table 3).
Yu et al. fails to teach explicitly I. providing CAD data of the object;
II. transforming the CAD data of the object into CAD data of a corresponding mold cavity for injection molding the object;
III. choosing at least one plastic material and at least one injection point;
Yu et al. (US 20120059637 A1) teaches I. providing CAD data of the object (Fig. 2, [0026]);
II. transforming the CAD data of the object into CAD data of a corresponding mold cavity for injection molding the object (Fig. 2, [0026]-[0028]);
III. choosing at least one plastic material and at least one injection point (Fig. 2 [0026]-[0028]).
As per Claim 17, Yu et al. fails to teach explicitly wherein the simulation result evaluated in step V. is at least one visualization output via at least one interface or port.
Yu et al. (US 20120059637 A1) teaches wherein the simulation result evaluated in step V. is at least one visualization output via at least one interface or port (Fig. 1, [0023], [0044] “GUI can present the CAD cavity model shaded according to, for example, temperature distribution, or pressure distribution across the cavity.”).
4. Claims 2-12 and 14 are rejected re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (“A Hybrid 3DRD Finite Element Technique for Polymer Processing Operations”), in view of Yu et al. (US 20120059637 A1), Tseng et al. (US 9573307 B1) and Autodesk (“Setting up an Autodesk Moldflow Insight Analysis To Match an Actual Molding Process”), and further in view of Tseng et al. (US 20120330627 A1), hereafter Tseng2 et al..
Yu et al. as modified by Yu et al. (US 20120059637 A1), Tseng et al., and Autodesk teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1, 8-11, 13-14, and 16-19 above.
As per Claim 2, Yu et al. as modified by Yu et al. (US 20120059637 A1), Tseng et al., and Autodesk fails to teach explicitly wherein, if the plastic material is a fiber-reinforced plastic material, the method further comprises: vi) determining fiber orientation of the fiber-reinforced plastic material.
Tseng2 et al. teaches wherein, if the plastic material is a fiber-reinforced plastic material, the method further comprises: vi) determining fiber orientation of the fiber-reinforced plastic material (Abstract).
Yu et al., Yu et al. (US 20120059637 A1), Tseng et al., Autodesk, and Tseng2 et al. are analogous art because they are all from the same field of endeavor, injection molding simulation/modeling.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teaching of Tseng2 et al. with the polymeric fluid simulation of motions for various polymer processing operations of Yu et al. as modified by Yu et al. (US 20120059637 A1), Tseng et al., and Autodesk to provide a system that optimizes a mold cavity design in order to produce the most commercially-acceptable product (Yu et al. (US 20120059637 A1): [0003]), to perform a real molding process by the molding machine by using the accurate modeling condition (Tseng et al.: Col. 46-62, Col. 6 lines 4-12), and to ensure realistic machine pressure constraints to identify short-shot conditions before committing to physical production as it is important to ensure the molding machine definition has the machine’s pressure limit defined (Autodesk: Pg 21). Further it is necessary to understand how the fiber orientation varies during the mold filling in order to design products effectively and accurately (Tseng2 et al.: [0006]-[0007], [0198]).
As per Claim 4, Yu et al. as modified by Yu et al. (US 20120059637 A1), Tseng et al., and Autodesk fails to teach explicitly wherein the information contained in the database comprises one or both of simulated data or empirically retrieved data on fiber orientation.
Tseng2 et al. teaches wherein the information contained in the database comprises one or both of simulated data or empirically retrieved data on fiber orientation ([0199]).
As per Claim 5, Yu et al. as modified by Yu et al. (US 20120059637 A1), Tseng et al., and Autodesk teaches wherein the step vi) further comprises: vi.2) retrieving information …for each cell from the database by using a cell position of the cell and determining… for the cell in the cell coordinate system (Yu et al. (US 20120059637 A1): [0040]-[0044]: In particular, Yu et al. teaches simulation on strip segments model by mapping mesh/cell by index from the CAD cavity model for cells and then mapping the simulation result for each cell back to the CAD mold cavity model).
Yu et al. as modified by Yu et al. (US 20120059637 A1), Tseng et al., and Autodesk fails to teach explicitly retrieving information on fiber orientation …from the database and determining fiber orientation.
Tseng2 et al. teaches retrieving information on fiber orientation …from the database and determining fiber orientation…. (Fig. 8C and the description).
As per Claim 6, Yu et al. as modified by Yu et al. (US 20120059637 A1), Tseng et al., and Autodesk teaches wherein step vi.2) is performed by using similarity considerations between the simulated mold cavity and the dummy element (Yu et al. (US 20120059637 A1): [0040]-[0044]: “Cells e.sup.i's can be indexed”).
As per Claim 7, Yu et al. as modified by Yu et al. (US 20120059637 A1), Tseng et al., and Autodesk teaches wherein the similarity considerations include an assessment of a resemblance between at least two subjects, wherein the similarity considerations are based on an assumption that the fiber orientation in the simulated mold cavity is identical to the fiber orientation in the at least one dummy element for identical relative positions within the simulated mold cavity and the at least one dummy element, respectively, and wherein the assumption is perform by using a definition of coordinate systems for the cell of the simulated mold cavity that is similar to a definition of coordinate systems for the at least one dummy element (Yu et al. (US 20120059637 A1): [0040]-[0044]: “Cells e.sup.i's can be indexed”: mapping the simulation result to the CAD model corresponding cell index).
As per Claim 12, Y Yu et al. as modified by Yu et al. (US 20120059637 A1), Tseng et al., and Autodesk fails to teach explicitly wherein the database contains information on fiber orientation for a plurality of fiber-reinforced plastic materials.
Tseng2 et al. teaches wherein the database contains information on fiber orientation for a plurality of fiber-reinforced plastic materials ([0183]-[0185], [0188]-[0199]).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully withdraws Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 in view of the amendment and/or applicant’s arguments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument – in view of Tseng et al. (US 9573307 B1) and Autodesk (“Setting up an Autodesk Moldflow Insight Analysis To Match an Actual Molding Process”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
EUNHEE KIM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/EUNHEE KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188