DETAILED ACTION
A summary of this action:
Claims 1, 4-8, and 11-21 have been presented for examination.
This action is Final.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, and in light of the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance, the 101 rejection of the Claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed to 101 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter." Here, Applicant argues that the claims recite the additional elements that clearly serve to integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. In particular, the claimed invention recites a specific technical improvement to the technical field of manufacturing mold design. Moreover, Applicant argues such methods and systems require the performance of complex calculations and intensive computing as they typically require large data storage and computing capacities as well as technical expertise which often are not available as performing such methods are time consuming and complex, which provides technological solutions to the above-described deficiencies.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments because MPEP 2106.05(a) states: “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements...” Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology.” Here, Applicant’s newly amended claim limitations are improvements to the abstract idea itself of “retrieving and selecting material, target property, or data.” Accordingly, all arguments are addressed in the 101 rejection of the claims below.
Therefore, the 101 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, the 103 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed the 103 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter. Here, Applicant cancels claims 2-3 and provides amended claim limitations in independent claim 1 that was formerly found in cancelled claims 2 and 3. More specifically, “retrieving three-dimensional geometrical data describing a candidate shape of a mold cavity; (f) retrieving at least one material to be used for the molding process, the retrieving comprising: (f1) retrieving at least one target property of at least one of: the at least one material; the component; or a manufacturing machine for manufacturing the component; and (f2) automatically selecting the at least one material from a database according to the target property.” Applicant argues that Examiner’s use of PLUMPTON, in contrast, describes selecting a material of a molding manifold, not of the material to be used in the molding, which makes claim 1 patentable over the cited references. Applicant argues that Plumpton, in contrast, describes selecting a material of a molding manifold, not of the material to be used in the molding.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees because PLUMPTON teaches retrieving at least one dimensional material to be used for the molding process PLUMPTON ([0027] “The model of manifold system 200 may be con figured such that thermal controller 208 detects, measures, receives or otherwise determines a thermal parameter of or corresponding to its thermal Zone, Such as the temperature of the manifold at thermal controller 208 or the temperature of resin or other molding material (material to be used) fed through channel 210 of the manifold to molding cavities.”) Accordingly, PLUMPTON does teach Applicant’s newly proposed claim limitations . All arguments are addressed in the 103 rejection of the claims below.
Therefore, the 103 rejection is Maintained.
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, 4-8, and 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process or mathematical concept without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1, 4-8 and 11-17 are directed to a method, which is a process and is a statutory category. Claims 18-21 are directed to a design system, which is a system and is a statutory category invention. Claims 2-3 and 9-10 are cancelled. Therefore, claims 1, 4-8, and 11-21 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Claim 1
Step 2A, Prong 1: Independent claims 1 and 8 recite an abstract idea because the claims are derived from Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper or in the alternative Mathematical Concepts using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations.
Claims 1 recites analyzing the geometrical data the analyzing comprising analyzing a geometry of the mold cavity by automatically scanning the geometrical data for a plurality of predetermined criteria and simulating a use of the mold cavity by at least one of a computer-implemented simulation of a filling of the mold cavity with the molten mass of at least one material and a computer-implemented simulation of the component manufactured by using the mold cavity, covers mental processes of assessing the computer-implemented steps of analyzing several factors including a geometry of a mold cavity and a predetermined criteria as described in [specification pdf page 4 of 24 | Lines 26-34] of the specification.
Claims 1 recites automatically interpreting at least one analysis result generated in step b) by subjecting the analysis result to at least one target specification, covers mental processes of assessing a target specification as described in [specification pdf page 4 of 24 | Line 35] of the specification.
Claims 1 recites pre-processing the geometrical data retrieved in step a) by discretizing the geometrical data into a mesh comprising a finite number of mesh elements, covers mental processes of assessing the geometrical data retrieved as described in [specification pdf page 17 of 24 | Line 12-13 and 18-19] of the specification.
Claims 1 recites automatically selecting the at least one material from a database according to the target property, covers mental processes of assessing a target specification as described in [specification pdf page 9 of 24 | Line 23] of the specification.
Claim 8 recites wherein the at least one simulated variable is a property selected from the group consisting of: a property of the molten mass of the at least one material used for filling the mold, a temperature of the molten mass of the at least one material; a property of the mold; a flow path length; a filling time for completely filling the mold with the molten mass of the at least one material; and a property of the at least one material of the component, covers mental processes of assessing a simulated variable from a group of property parameters as described in [specification page 17 of 24 | Lines 1-7] of the specification.
Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 4-7, and 11-21 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims. See analysis below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 18 recites the additional limitation “processor” as in dependent claim 18, “requesting computer” as in dependent claims 16, 19, and 20, “processing computer” as in dependent claims 16, 19, and 20, “client-server system” as in dependent claim 21, “design system” as in dependent claims 18-21, “computing device,” as in dependent claim 17, “web interface” as in dependent claim 20, “server” as in dependent claim 21, “web-server” as in dependent claim 21, this limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, this additional element merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation retrieving three-dimensional geometrical data describing a candidate shape of a mold cavity, recited in independent claim 1, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation retrieving at least one material to be used for the molding process, recited in dependent claim 1, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation retrieving at least one target property of at least one of: the material; the component; a manufacturing machine for manufacturing the component, recited in dependent claim 1, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation of outputting at least one interpretation result generated in step c ), the interpretation result describing at least one quality of one or both of the molding process and a part design using the candidate shape of the mold cavity, recited in claim 1, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The limitation of “outputting at least one automatic report, wherein the automatic
report comprises the at least one item of recommendation information,” recited in claim 12, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The limitation of “outputting the at least one automatic report,” recited in claim 13, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The limitation retrieving at least one item of analysis information from the at least one interpretation result generated in step c) and using the at least one item of analysis in formation in an automated learning process, recited in dependent claim 15, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation of “outputting the interpretation result generated in step c) to at 1 east one further computing device,” recited in claim 17, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The limitation of “outputting the interpretation result in step d) to the requesting computer,” recited in claim 19, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The limitation of “wherein the design system further comprises at least one web interface for one or both of transmitting information from the requesting computer to the processing computer or vice versa,” recited in claim 20, are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea and can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). Thus, these limitations fail to provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4-7 and 11-21 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Therefore, the dependent claims do not integrate the claimed invention into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claims do not amount to significantly more. The judicial exception does not amount to significantly more. Claim 18 recites the additional limitation “processor” as in dependent claim 18, “requesting computer” as in dependent claims 16, 19, and 20, “processing computer” as in dependent claims 16, 19, and 20, “client-server system” as in dependent claim 21, “design system” as in dependent claims 18-21, “computing device,” as in dependent claim 17, “web interface” as in dependent claim 20, “server” as in dependent claim 21, “web-server” as in dependent claim 21, this limitation does not amount to significantly more because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, this additional element merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation retrieving three-dimensional geometrical data describing a candidate shape of a mold cavity, recited in independent claim 1, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f) and does not amount to significantly more.
The limitation retrieving at least one material to be used for the molding process, recited in dependent claim 1, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f) and does not amount to significantly more.
The limitation retrieving at least one target property of at least one of: the material; the component; a manufacturing machine for manufacturing the component, recited in dependent claim 1, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f) and does not amount to significantly more.
The limitation of outputting at least one interpretation result generated in step c ), the interpretation result describing at least one quality of one or both of the molding process and a part design using the candidate shape of the mold cavity, recited in claim 1, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not amount to significantly more. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception does not amount to significantly more.
The limitation of “outputting at least one automatic report, wherein the automatic
report comprises the at least one item of recommendation information,” recited in claim 12, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not amount to significantly more. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception does not amount to significantly more.
The limitation of “outputting the at least one automatic report,” recited in claim 13, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not amount to significantly more. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception and does not amount to significantly more.
The limitation retrieving at least one item of analysis information from the at least one interpretation result generated in step c) and using the at least one item of analysis in formation in an automated learning process, recited in dependent claim 15, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f) and does not amount to significantly more.
The limitation of “outputting the interpretation result generated in step c) to at 1 east one further computing device,” recited in claim 17, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not amount to significantly more. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception and does not amount to significantly more.
The limitation of “outputting the interpretation result in step d) to the requesting computer,” recited in claim 19, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not amount to significantly more. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception and does not amount to significantly more.
The limitation of “wherein the design system further comprises at least one web interface for one or both of transmitting information from the requesting computer to the processing computer or vice versa,” recited in claim 20, are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea and can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). Thus, these limitations fail to provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4-7 and 11-21 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they amount to significantly more. Therefore, the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claims as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 4 recites wherein step b 1. comprises determining in the geometrical data at least one measured variable, and wherein step c) comprises comparing the at least one measured variable with at least one threshold value of the target specification, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 5 recites wherein the at least one measured variable is selected from the group consisting of: a length; an angle; and a thickness,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 6 recites “wherein step c) comprises identifying critical geometrical properties of the candidate shape of the mold cavity, wherein step c) comprises using at least one process of artificial intelligence,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 7 recites “wherein step b2. comprises determining at least one simulated variable, and wherein step c) comprises comparing the at least one simulated variable with at least one simulation threshold variable of the target specification,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 11 recites “wherein the at least one interpretation result generated in step c) comprises at least one item of recommendation information, wherein the at least one item of recommendation information comprises at least one recommendation selected from the group consisting of: a material adaption, a geometry adaption, and adaption of manufacturing parameters,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 14 recites “wherein the outputting of the at least one automatic report comprises providing guidance for one or more of a material adaption, a geometry adaption and an adaption of manufacturing parameters,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 16 recites “wherein the method comprises using at least one requesting computer and at least one processing computer, wherein the processing computer retrieves the three-dimensional geometrical data from the requesting computer, performs at least steps b )-c ), and outputs the interpretation result in step d) to the requesting computer, wherein the requesting computer and the processing computer communicate via at least one web interface,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 18 recites “A design system for designing a molding process for manufacturing at least one component, the design system comprising at least one processor configured to perform the steps of the method according to claim 1.,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 19 recites “wherein the design system comprises at least one processing computer and at least one requesting computer, wherein the processing computer is configured for retrieving the three-dimensional geometrical data from the requesting computer, for performing at least steps b)-c), and for outputting the interpretation result in step d) to the requesting computer,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 21 recites “wherein the design system is a client-server-system, wherein the at least one processing computer is selected from the group consisting of: a server; and at least one web-server,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Processes.”
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, 4, 5, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NISHIYAMA (US 5812402 A), herein NISHIYAMA, in view of ZENG (WO 2004079341 A2), herein ZENG, in view of MENSLER (US 20180117816 A1), herein MENSLER, in view of ZHANG (CN 102750407 A), herein ZHANG, and in view of PLUMPTON (US 20080099569 A1), herein PLUMPTON.
Claim 1
NISHIYAMA teaches retrieving three-dimensional geometrical data describing a candidate shape of a mold cavity NISHIYAMA ([pdf page 111 of 129 | Column 28 |] “As shown in FIG.26, the retrieval vector is -Z component, which is opposite direction to the vector in the mold opening direction. The mold opening direction may be defined as the direction for splitting the mold block 100 into the cavity and the core (see FIG.S). Accordingly, the plane elements having their normal vectors in the same direction as the retrieval vector become obstructive when the mold block 100 is split into the cavity and the core.”) See also NISHIYAMA ([Fig. 26].”
PNG
media_image1.png
517
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
NISHIYAMA Figure 26 Reference
NISHIYAMA also teaches by automatically scanning the geometrical data [[(110)]] for a plurality of predetermined criteria NISHIYAMA (pdf page 103 of 129 | Column 11 | Lines 24-33] “According to the second design method of the present invention, the undercut portion may be detected by comparing the normal vector on the plane of the product shape and the reference vector in the mold opening direction (plurality of predetermined criteria), and then detecting the normal vector with the opposite direction to that of the reference vector. In other words, the plane with the normal vector (geometrical data) having the opposite direction to that of the reference vector always exists in the undercut portion. In the present invention, the undercut portion can be automatically detected (automatically scanning) based on such a characteristic.”)
NISHIYAMA also teaches automatically interpreting at least one analysis result generated in step b) by subjecting the analysis result to at least one target specification NISHIYAMA ([pdf page 120 of 129 | column 46 | lines 33-37] “In the nineteenth embodiment of the present invention, if the dimensional tolerances have already been decided between parts of the mold model, as shown in FIG. 57, half tolerance of the dimension of given parts may automatically modified to central tolerance. By way of example, as shown in 1 of FIG. 57, the display 19 may display a dimension 50 as a width of the parts, and also display an upper limit +0 and a lower limit -0.2 like “50+2 -0.2” as half tolerance therefor. As for a height of the parts, it may display an upper limit +0.1 and a lower limit -0 like “5+01 - 0” as half tolerance for a height of 5. The product shape is displayed by central values.”)
NISHIMAYA also teaches outputting at least one interpretation result generated in step c), the interpretation result describing at least one quality of one or both of the molding process and a part design using the candidate shape of the mold cavity NISHIYAMA ([pdf page 125 | column 56 | lines 41-51] “In FIG.75, the contents of the tool are designation of display color of lines, characters and regions, output method of design information, reference value ( design data) required for each design, and notation of respective parts data. In the twenty-sixth embodiment, the product shape data is displayed by "CYAN", the undercut portion is displayed by "PINK", the parting line is displayed by "YELLOW", the cavity/core is displayed by "MAGENTA", the mold base is displayed by "WHITE", and the ejector pin is displayed by "BLUE". The display 19 may display lines, characters and regions based on such classification of color.
NISHIYAMA teaches retrieving at least one material to be used for the molding process wherein step f is performed before step b) NISHIYAMA ([pdf page 111 of 129 | Column 28 | Lines 35-50] “As shown in FIG.26, the retrieval vector is -Z component, which is opposite direction to the vector in the mold opening direction. The mold opening direction may be defined as the direction for splitting the mold block 100 into the cavity and the core (see FIG.S). Accordingly, the plane elements having their normal vectors in the same direction as the retrieval vector become obstructive when the mold block 100 is split into the cavity and the core. In step H3, plane elements constituting the product shape may be read out, and in step H4 components of the normal vector on the product plane with respect to the retrieval vector may be examined. As shown in FIG.26, if the normal vector is opposite to the direction component of the retrieval vector, i.e., positive ( +) or if it is 0, the progress goes to step H10 where succeeding plane elements are retrieved since it is not obstructive to the mold opening.
NISHIYAMA also teaches retrieving at least one target property of at least one of: the material; the material component; a manufacturing machine for manufacturing the component; and automatically selecting at least one material from a database according to the target property NISHIYAMA ([pdf page 112 of 129 | column 29 | lines 19-27] “In this manner, in the mold design method (manufacturing machine for manufacturing the component) according to the seventh embodiment of the present invention, the undercut portions being obstructive to release of the cavity 3 (material component;) from the core 4 (material component) of the mold (material) may be detected by retrieving the normal vector (retrieving at least one target property) of the product shape in the same direction as the retrieval vector. Thus, the rising portions of the product shape, the undercut hidden behind the boss, etc. cannot be missed. By detecting the undercut, the core of the mold may be designed as the nest structure.”) See also NISHIYAMA ([pdf page 98 of 129 | Column 1 | lines 40-44] “FIG. 1C shows a configuration of an injection molding machine on which the mold is mounted. With being arranged so as to oppose to each other in the vertical direction, the cavity 3 and the core 4 are clamped on a cavity plate 3A and a core plate 4A respectively.”) See also NISHIYAMA ([Figure 1B] and [Figure 1C].)
PNG
media_image2.png
408
381
media_image2.png
Greyscale
NISHIYAMA Figures 1B and 1C Reference
NISHIYAMA does not explicitly teach simulating a use of the mold cavity by at least one of a computer-implemented simulation of a filling of the mold cavity with a molten mass of at least one material, a computer-implemented simulation of the component manufactured by using the mold cavity, or pre-processing the geometrical data retrieved in step a) by discretizing the geometrical data into a mesh comprising a finite number of mesh elements.
However, ZENG teaches simulating a use of the mold cavity by at least one of a computer-implemented simulation of a filling of the mold cavity with a molten mass of at least one material ZENG ([0040] “In another aspect, the invention includes a method for simulating fluid flow within a mold cavity, the method including the steps of: providing a representation of a mold cavity into which a material flows; defining a solution domain based on the representation and solving for a process variable in the solution domain at a time t using one or more governing equations, wherein the solving step comprises the substep of using a morphological characterization of the material in solving the governing equation(s).”)
ZENG also teaches a computer-implemented simulation of the component manufactured by using the mold cavity ZENG ([0040] “In one embodiment, the substep of using a morphological characterization of the material in solving the governing equation(s) comprises determining a viscosity of the material based on the morphological characterization, for example, at a time prior to time t.”)
ZENG also teaches pre-processing the geometrical data retrieved in step a) by discretizing the geometrical data into a mesh comprising a finite number of mesh elements ZENG ([0004] “Computer models have been developed for performing structural analyses (pre-processing) of various kinds of products (geometrical data). A structural analysis constitutive model may include a finite element (a finite number of mesh elements) mesh that defines a solution domain in which constitutive equations are solved (discretizing the geometrical data into a mesh), subject to specified support conditions, loads, and/or imposed forces.”) See also ZENG ([0048] “Figure 5B depicts a meshed solution domain for obtaining a characterization of the flow (discretizing the geometrical data) that occurs during the injection molding process of the part shown in Figure 5A; following which, a morphological characterization is predicted as a function of skin-core depth measured from points A, B, and C, according to an illustrative embodiment of the invention.”) See also ZENG ([Figure 5A and Figure 5B].)
PNG
media_image3.png
515
388
media_image3.png
Greyscale
ZENG Figure 5A and Figure 5B Reference
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of NISHIYAMA with ZENG as the references deal with methods, systems, computer programs and products shall be proposed for improving the process of designing a molding process for manufacturing at least one component. ZENG would modify NISHIYAMA by simulating a use of the mold cavity by at least one of a computer-implemented simulation of a filling of the mold cavity with a molten mass of at least one material. The benefits of doing so provide increased process modeling efficiency, which contributes to the overall speed and accuracy of the methods disclosed herein. (ZENG [0062]).
The combination of NISHIYAMA and ZENG do not explicitly teach analyzing the geometrical data, the analyzing comprising: analyzing a geometry of the mold cavity
However, MENSLER teaches analyzing the geometrical data, the analyzing comprising: analyzing a geometry of the mold cavity MENSLER ([0006] “In the inventive method, geometry data are first determined for the injection mould and/or for a form part that is to be manufactured in that injection mould.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of MENSLER with NISHIYAMA and ZENG as the references deal with methods, systems, computer programs and products shall be proposed for improving the process of designing a molding process for manufacturing at least one component. MENSLER would modify NISHIYAMA and ZENG by analyzing the geometrical data, the analyzing comprising: analyzing a geometry of the mold cavity. The benefits of doing so provide a more straightforward and economical method of determining a number of process parameter values in an injection moulding procedure within an injection mould, as well as a corresponding facility. (MENSLER [0004]).
The combination of NISHIYAMA, ZENG, and MENSLER does not explicitly teach wherein step e) is performed before performing step b), wherein step e) further comprises a file repair of defective parts of the geometrical data.
However, ZHANG teaches wherein step e) is performed before performing step b), wherein step e) further comprises a file repair of defective parts of the geometrical data ZHANG ([pdf page 2 of 5 | Embodiment] “A kind of CAD/GAE data are handled and conversion method automatically, and its basic step is as shown in Figure 2: 1) generate cad data. According to the product design requirement, carry out product structure design by CAD slip-stick artist, set up products C AD and design a model, comprise geometric modeling, part modeling etc., generate the CAD computational data; 2) the CAD/GAE data are handled automatically. With products CAD data through data read in, data repair, data processing and data output, convert cad data into the GAE data.3) GAE data issuing. To accomplish data converted,. submit to GAE slip-stick artist, accomplish the automatic processing and the issue of CAD/GAE data through the data issuing module.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of ZHANG with NISHIYAMA, ZENG and MENSLER as the references deal with methods, systems, computer programs and products shall be proposed for improving the process of designing a molding process for manufacturing at least one component. ZHANG would modify NISHIYAMA, ZENG, and MENSLER wherein step e) is performed before performing step b), wherein step e) further comprises a file repair of defective parts of the geometrical data. The benefits of doing so provides an automatic processing and the issue of CAE data stream. (ZHANG [pdf page 2 of 5 | Summary of Invention]).
The combination of NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, and ZHANG does not explicitly teach automatically selecting at least one material from a database according to the target property.
However, PLUMPTON teaches automatically selecting at least one material from a database according to the target property PLUMPTON ([0033-0034] “Returning to FIG. 1, at least one input regarding at least one material of the apparatus or system represented by the model utilized in step 102 (such as model 200), is provided in step 104. The input may be a manual user-input providing information regarding one or more materials, chemicals or compositions utilized or intended to be utilized to make the physical system. The information may, for example, be one or more physical or performance properties, e.g., thermal conductivity, heat capacity or thermal capacitance, specific heat capacity (also called more properly “mass-specific heat capacity' or more loosely “specific heat'), boundary conditions, or the like, etc. In one embodiment where the model is directed towards a system that is already designed, the materials may be detected by automated mechanisms or automatically Submitted to the model.”) See also PLUMPTON ([0027] “The model of manifold system 200 may be con figured such that thermal controller 208 detects, measures, receives or otherwise determines a thermal parameter of or corresponding to its thermal Zone, Such as the temperature of the manifold at thermal controller 208 or the temperature of resin or other molding material (material to be used) fed through channel 210 of the manifold to molding cavities.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of PLUMPTON with NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, and ZHANG as the references deal with methods, systems, computer programs and products shall be proposed for improving the process of designing a molding process for manufacturing at least one component. PLUMPTON would modify NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, and ZHANG by automatically selecting at least one material from a database according to the target property. The benefits of doing so provides a method that may also be modified according to the teachings of this disclosure to redesign an existing manifold and would be particularly advantageous when an existing manifold is not operating properly or efficiently. (PLUMPTON [0024]). Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 4
Claim 4 is rejected because the combination of NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, ZHANG, and PLUMPTON teaches the claim 1 limitations.
NISHIYAMA teaches wherein step b1 comprises determining in the geometrical data at least one measured variable NISHIYAMA ([pdf page 117 of 129 | column 40 | lines 5-13] “Thereafter, in step 05, the designer may determine a sectional shape (determining in the geometrical data) of the runner. The runner locus may be determined when the designer designate locations (geometrical data) of the cavity and the core on the menu screen. The runner locus may be designed by employing either a method for designating the starting point (one measured variable) and the end point (one measured variable) and then connecting them or a method for inputting the starting point and incremental value. The sectional shape of the runner may be designated by the designer on the menu screen.”)
NISHIYAMA also teaches wherein step c) comprises comparing the at least one measured variable with at least one threshold value of the target specification NISHIYAMA ([pdf page 112 of 129 | column 29 | lines 19-27] “According to the second design method of the present invention, the undercut portion may be detected by comparing the normal vector (comparing the at least one measured variable) on the plane of the product shape and the reference vector (target specification) in the mold opening direction, and then detecting the normal vector with the opposite direction (one threshold value) to that of the reference vector.”) Accordingly, claim 4 is rejected based on this reference.
Claim 5
Claim 5 is rejected because the combination of NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, ZHANG, and PLUMPTON teaches the claim 4 limitations.
NISHIYAMA teaches wherein the at least one measured variable is selected from the group consisting of: a length; an angle; and a thickness NISHIYAMA ([pdf page 117 of 129 | column 40 | lines 5-13] “D3 are element data (one measured variable) such as line elements of the product (i.e., data such as length, curvature, angle of lines constituting the product shape) and plane elements of the product (i.e., data such as size, curvature, angle of planes constituting the product shape. D4 are cavity/core data for defining shapes of the cavity and the core.”) Accordingly, claim 5 is rejected based on this reference.
Claim 15
Claim 15 is rejected because the combination of NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, ZHANG, and PLUMPTON teaches the claim 1 limitations.
NISHIYAMA teaches retrieving at least one item of analysis information from the at least one interpretation result generated in step c) and using the at least one item of analysis in-formation in an automated learning process NISHIYAMA ([pdf page 110 of 129 | column 26 | lines17-25] “On the other hand, if the designer has determined that the candidates are not used as the main parting line in step F6 (NO), then in step F10 it is retrieved whether or not succeeding candidates are present. If there has been succeeding candidates (YES), then the process returns to step F5 to repeat steps F5 to F10. If there has been no succeeding candidate (NO), then the process advances to step F11 where loop check may be effected to check whether the main parting line can be formed as a closed loop.”) See also NISHIYAMA ([pdf page 111 of 129 | column 28 | lines1-5] “by checking in step G6 according to the coordinate retrieval result of line elements of the parting lines whether there are elements of the parting lines having knots on the same coordinates, it may be checked automatically whether or not the parting lines may constitute the closed loop.”) Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected based this reference.
Claim 17
Claim 17 is rejected because the combination of NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, ZHANG, and PLUMPTON teaches the claim 1 limitations.
The combination of NISHIYAMA and ZENG does not explicitly teach outputting the interpretation result generated in step c) to at least one further computing device.
However, MENSLER teaches outputting the interpretation result generated in step c) to at least one further computing device MENSLER ([0027] “The inventive method can be used particularly advantageously in a method of visualising an injection moulding procedure inside an injection mould of an injection moulding arrangement. To this end, the inventive method is applied to determine at least the position of the flow front as a function of the respective current injection time and/or actuator position. This flow front can then be virtually shown (output the interpretation result generated in step c), in a display arrangement, inside a virtual injection mould and/or a virtual form part or a virtual form part geometry. To this end, the process parameter values determining arrangement or its user interface can be equipped with a suitable visualisation arrangement. The flow front position can be output preferably as an animation, for example as a video or slide-show (using individual images) or similar (one further computing device). In a particularly preferred embodiment of the invention, at certain points along the flow front, the user is able to enter control commands for subsequent injection moulding procedures.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of MENSLER with NISHIYAMA and ZENG as the references deal with methods, systems, computer programs and products shall be proposed for improving the process of designing a molding process for manufacturing at least one component. MENSLER would modify NISHIYAMA and ZENG by outputting the interpretation result generated in step c) to at least one further computing device. The benefits of doing so provide a more straightforward and economical method of determining a number of process parameter values in an injection moulding procedure within an injection mould, as well as a corresponding facility. (MENSLER [0004]). Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 18
Claim 18 is rejected because the combination of NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, ZHANG, and PLUMPTON teaches the claim 1 limitations.
NISHIYAMA teaches a design system for designing a molding process for manufacturing at least one component, the design system comprising at least one processor configured to perform the steps of the method according to claim 1 NISHIYAMA ([Abstract] “An injection mold design system (design system) for correcting a profile of a product to be fabricated (designing a molding process for manufacturing) into a releasable profile from a mold (at least one component) to design an injection mold (at least one component) based on a corrected product shape, comprising storing means for storing information (at least one processor) of product shape and mold profile, displaying means (at least one processor) for displaying the product shape or the mold profile on a screen based on the information read from the storing means, inputting means (at least one processor) for inputting designation information necessary for correction of the product shape or the mold profile, and controlling means (at least one processor) for unloading information of lines or planes being obstructive to correction of the product shape and the mold profile into the storing means in response to the designation information input by the inputting means, removing the lines or the planes from the screen, and replotting the line or the planes on the screen in terms of the information of lines or planes unloaded into the storing means after the correction operation of the product shape or the mold profile is completed.”) Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected based on this reference.
Claim 19
Claim 19 is rejected because it is the system embodiment of claims 1 and 16, with similar limitations to claims 1 and 16, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claims 1 and 16.
Claim 20
Claim 20 is rejected because it is the system embodiment of claim 16, with similar limitations to claim 16, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 16.
Claim(s) 6-7, 11-13, and 21 are rejected under are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NISHIYAMA, in view of ZENG, in view of MENSLER, in view of ZHANG, in view of PLUMPTON, and in further view of SPRINGER (US 20180181694 A1), herein SPRINGER.
Claim 6
Claim 6 is rejected because the combination of NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, ZHANG, and PLUMPTON teaches the claim 1 limitations.
The combination of NISHIYAMA and ZENG does not explicitly teach wherein step c) comprises identifying critical geometrical properties of the candidate shape of the mold cavity
However, MENSLER teaches wherein step c) comprises identifying critical geometrical properties of the candidate shape of the mold cavity MENSLER ([0074] “In stage 1.III, the virtual part-specific pressure curve (of the virtual melt or injection mould mass, therefore also referred to as "mass pressure curve", i.e. the pressure required in order to fill the cavity or the pressure determined at the section or at the gate, is calculated on the basis of these geometric data using the (virtual) injection time at constant volumetric flow of the injection mould material.”) See also MENSLER ([0078] “The principle can best be explained with the aid of a simple example, referring to FIG. 2. In this example, the flow path describes a straight path (one-dimensional flow path) from the gate to the end along a stepped plate with two steps as moulded part 1. In such a case, it would also be possible for example to analytically determine the pressure drop. To this end, the part geometry can be broken down into calculable basic geometrical sections. These can then be computed according to equation (1).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of MENSLER with NISHIYAMA and ZENG as the references deal with methods, systems, computer programs and products shall be proposed for improving the process of designing a molding process for manufacturing at least one component. MENSLER would modify NISHIYAMA and ZENG by analyzing the geometrical data, the analyzing comprising: b1. analyzing a geometry of the mold cavity. The benefits of doing so provide a more straightforward and economical method of determining a number of process parameter values in an injection moulding procedure within an injection mould, as well as a corresponding facility. (MENSLER [0004]).
The combination of NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, ZHANG, and PLUMPTON does not explicitly teach wherein step c) comprises using at least one process of artificial intelligence.
However, SPRINGER teaches wherein step c) comprises using at least one process of artificial intelligence SPRINGER ([0043] “In an embodiment preferred in this regard, the return of measured data, machine data, material data, mould data, process data, user data and quality data from decentralized injection-moulding machines to a central data memory via remote data transmission connection can be provided in order to train a process optimization system (POS) (e.g. on the basis of fuzzy logic, neural networks, expert systems (using at least one process of artificial intelligence), or the like) for the optimal setting of a moulding machine in a possibly central processing unit by means of e.g. machine learning.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of SPRINGER with NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, ZHANG, and PLUMPTON as the references deal with methods, systems, computer programs and products shall be proposed for improving the process of designing a molding process for manufacturing at least one component. SPRINGER would modify NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, ZHANG, and PLUMPTON wherein step c) comprises using at least one process of artificial intelligence. The benefits of doing so provide a simplified method for simulating a moulding process which allows in particular a simpler optimization of a moulding process. (SPRINGER [0032]). Accordingly, claim 6 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 7
Claim 7 is rejected because the combination of NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, ZHANG, and PLUMPTON teaches the claim 1 limitations.
The combination of NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, ZHANG, and PLUMPTON does not explicitly teach wherein step b2 comprises determining at least one simulated variable.
However, SPRINGER teaches wherein step b2 comprises determining at least one simulated variable SPRINGER ([0015] “Core aspects of the invention are the identification of differences between descriptive variables of actual and simulated injection-moulding machines and the subsequent optimization of the process optimization system. Descriptive variables describe a wide variety of aspects of the moulding process.”)
SPRINGER also teaches wherein step c) comprises comparing the at least one simulated variable with at least one simulation threshold variable of the target specification SPRINGER ([0115] “By means of a comparison of simulation and measurements (comparing the at least one simulated variable) (available from the descriptive variables), model and process parameters (one simulation threshold variable) that are unknown or are not precisely known can be identified. This can be carried out e.g. by minimizing error functions (target specification) (least squares, etc.). Corresponding methods are known to a person skilled in the art. From this point in time, simulation and reality are assumed to be identical.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of SPRINGER with NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, ZHANG, and PLUMPTON as the references deal with methods, systems, computer programs and products shall be proposed for improving the process of designing a molding process for manufacturing at least one component. SPRINGER would modify NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, ZHANG, and PLUMPTON wherein step c) comprises using at least one process of artificial intelligence. The benefits of doing so provide a simplified method for simulating a moulding process which allows in particular a simpler optimization of a moulding process. (SPRINGER [0032]). Accordingly, claim 7 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 11
Claim 11 is rejected because the combination of NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, ZHANG, and PLUMPTON teaches the claim 1 limitations.
The combination of NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, ZHANG, and PLUMPTON does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one interpretation result generated in step c) comprises at least one item of recommendation information.
However, SPRINGER teaches wherein the at least one interpretation result generated in step c) comprises at least one item of recommendation information wherein the at least one item of recommendation information comprises at least one recommendation selected from the group consisting of: a material adaption, a geometry adaption, and adaption of manufacturing parameters SPRINGER ([0064] “As mentioned, quality parameters can, however, be used not only for evaluating the quality of the moulding process (adaption of manufacturing parameters), but also for identifying which of these parameters (a material adaption and a geometry adaption) have to be evaluated and the way in which they have to be evaluated. Quality parameters can thus also be advantageous for discovering correlations between particular setting data sets (and individual parameters therefrom) (a material adaption)and the quality parameters ("pattern recognition")(a geometry adaption). During the corresponding modification of the POS, it can then be assumed that the modified POS (according to (e)) suggests process settings (at least one item of recommendation information) which produce moulded parts with improved or optimized quality parameters. Some quality parameters can also be determined on the actual moulded part.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of SPRINGER with NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, ZHANG, and PLUMPTON as the references deal with methods, systems, computer programs and products shall be proposed for improving the process of designing a molding process for manufacturing at least one component. SPRINGER would modify NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, ZHANG, and PLUMPTON wherein the at least one item of recommendation information comprises at least one recommendation selected from the group consisting of: a material adaption, a geometry adaption, and adaption of manufacturing parameters. The benefits of doing so provide a simplified method for simulating a moulding process which allows in particular a simpler optimization of a moulding process. (SPRINGER [0032]). Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 12
Claim 12 is rejected because the combination of NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, ZHANG, PLUMPTON, and SPRINGER teaches the claim 11 limitations.
The combination of NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, and ZHANG does not explicitly teach wherein the method further comprises outputting at least one automatic report, wherein the automatic report comprises the at least one item of recommendation information.
However, SPRINGER teaches wherein the method further comprises outputting at least one automatic report, wherein the automatic report comprises the at least one item of recommendation information SPRINGER ([0085-0088] “The configuration of the simulation which is necessary for this is carried out using a user's computer and/or on the basis of the transmitted descriptive variables of the moulding process and transmitted to a central computer. Furthermore, the associated control systems can be derived. The central database can also be enlarged and improved by identifying physical variables (one item of recommendation information) during actual moulding processes on the machine. Parameter variations and new materials can thereby be recorded (outputting at least one automatic report). By means of the transmitted configuration data, the simulation is created with automatic provision of the simulation parameters on the central computer. A digital reproduction (automatic report) of the machine is therefore available.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of SPRINGER with NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, ZHANG, and PLUMPTON as the references deal with methods, systems, computer programs and products shall be proposed for improving the process of designing a molding process for manufacturing at least one component. SPRINGER would modify NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, ZHANG, and PLUMPTON wherein the method further comprises outputting at least one automatic report, wherein the automatic report comprises the at least one item of recommendation information. The benefits of doing so provide a simplified method for simulating a moulding process which allows in particular a simpler optimization of a moulding process. (SPRINGER [0032]). Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 13
Claim 13 is rejected because the combination of NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, ZHANG, PLUMPTON, and SPRINGER teaches the claim 12 limitations.
The combination of NISHIYAMA, ZENG, and MENSLER does not explicitly teach wherein step d) comprises outputting the at least one automatic report.
However, ZHANG teaches wherein step d) comprises outputting the at least one automatic report “A kind of CAD/GAE data are handled and conversion method automatically, and its basic step is as shown in Figure 2: 1) generate cad data. According to the product
design requirement (interpretation result describing at least one quality of the molding process), carry out product structure design by CAD slip-stick artist, set up products CAD and design a model, comprise geometric modeling, part modeling etc., generate the CAD computational data; 2) the CAD/GAE data are handled automatically. With products CAD data through data read in, data repair, data processing and data output (outputting), convert cad data into the GAE data.3) GAE data issuing. To accomplish data converted,. submit to GAE slip-stick artist, accomplish the automatic processing (one automatic report) and the issue of CAD/GAE data through the data issuing module.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of ZHANG with NISHIYAMA, ZENG and MENSLER as the references deal with methods, systems, computer programs and products shall be proposed for improving the process of designing a molding process for manufacturing at least one component. ZHANG would modify NISHIYAMA, ZENG, and MENSLER wherein step d) comprises outputting the at least one automatic report. The benefits of doing so provides an automatic processing and the issue of CAE data stream. (ZHANG [pdf page 2 of 5 | Summary of Invention]). Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 21
Claim 21 is rejected because of the combination of NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, and ZHANG teach the claim 19 limitations.
The combination of NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, ZHANG, and PLUMPTON does not explicitly teach wherein the design system is a client-server-system, wherein the at least one processing computer is selected from the group consisting of: a server; and at least one web-server.
However, SPRINGER teaches wherein the design system is a client-server-system, wherein the at least one processing computer is selected from the group consisting of: a server; and at least one web-server SPRINGER ([0039] “The computer (one processing computer) which is separate from the moulding machine and the user's computer is also known as the "central computer". This applies analogously to the memory which is separate from the moulding machine and the user's computer. The central computer and the central memory (client-server-system) can be realized in one physical unit. However, this is not absolutely necessary for the invention. In particular, the central computer and the central memory can be realized as a cloud computer or cloud storage (client-server-system)).”) See also SPRINGER ([0035] “The invention according to the second variant ultimately allows a "web-based" (one web-server) simulation of the moulding process. The invention in its second variant is applicable in the same situations as in its first variant.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of SPRINGER with NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, ZHANG, and PLUMPTON as the references deal with methods, systems, computer programs and products shall be proposed for improving the process of designing a molding process for manufacturing at least one component. SPRINGER would modify NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, ZHANG, and PLUMPTON wherein the design system is a client-server-system, wherein the at least one processing computer is selected from the group consisting of: a server; and at least one web-server. The benefits of doing so provide a simplified method for simulating a moulding process which allows in particular a simpler optimization of a moulding process. (SPRINGER [0032]). Accordingly, claim 21 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MENSLER, and in view of PRIAMUS SYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES AG (DE 10114228 A1), herein PRIAMUS SYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES AG.
Claim 8
Claim 8 is rejected because MENSLER teaches wherein the at least one simulated variable is a property MENSLER ([0015] “Within the framework of the invention, mould data, machine data, material data, process data, measured data, user data and quality data can be transmitted from decentralized injection-moulding machines to a central data memory via remote data transmission connection. The identification and evaluation of the quality parameters (property variables) as well as their effect on process setting parameters can be learned on the basis of quality parameters (property variables) determined by means of simulation and/or transmitted descriptive variables (simulated property variables).”)
MENSLER does not explicitly teach selected from the group consisting of: a property of the molten mass of the at least one material used for filling the mold, a temperature of the molten mass of the at least one material; a property of the mold; a flow path length; a filling time for completely filling the mold with the molten mass of the at least one material; and a property of the at least one material of the component.
However, PRIAMUS SYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES AG teaches selected from the group consisting of: a property of the molten mass of the at least one material used for filling the mold, a temperature of the molten mass of the at least one material; a property of the mold; a flow path length; a filling time for completely filling the mold with the molten mass of the at least one material; and a property of the at least one material of the component PRIAMUS SYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES AG ([Abstract] “The invention relates to a method for regulating the contraction of molded parts in a cavity (5, 5.1) in a mold (1) of an injection molding machine after completing the filling process of said cavity (5, 5.1) with molten mass (one material used for filling the mold). According to said method, the temperature (temperature of the molten mass) of the mold (1) is regulated, whereby the temperature and/or the internal pressure (a property of the mold) in the cavity (component)(5, 5.1} is monitored and adapted to a reference curve by performing temperature equalization of the mold from the end of the filling phase (a filling time for completely filling the mold with the molten mass) or from a maximum pressure (a property of the at least one material) (13} in the cavity (component) (5, 5.1) until the end of the injection cycle.”) See also PRIAMUS SYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES AG ([Description | pdf page 2 of 7] “In the manufacture of Injection molded parts of all kinds (plastic, metal, ceramic etc.) (at least one material) are often several parts per cost reasons Cycle produced simultaneously (multiple tools). See also PRIAMUS SYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES AG ([Description | pdf page 1 of 7] “In known methods for filling a mold z. B. with thermoplastics (one material used for filling the mold) Filling process controlled to an initial speed-controlled phase a pressure-controlled phase follows, which lasts until the end of the filling process. Against End of the speed-controlled phase or in The initial area of the pressure-controlled phase is the Filling situation reached, in which the mold cavity (component) is completely wetted with plasticizable mass (a property of the molten mass), whereby the mass pressure inside the mold cavity still is comparatively small.”) See also PRIAMUS SYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES AG ([Description | pdf page 2 of 7] “Because the mold pressure over the flow path length (a flow path length) due to the structural viscosity is constantly decreasing, it has proven to be proven advisable to close a mold cavity pressure sensor to get as much information as possible.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of PRIAMUS SYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES AG with MENSLER as the references deal with methods, systems, computer programs and products shall be proposed for improving the process of designing a molding process for manufacturing at least one component. PRIAMUS SYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES AG would modify MENSLER wherein selected from the group consisting of: a property of the molten mass of the at least one material used for filling the mold, a temperature of the molten mass of the at least one material; a property of the mold; a flow path length; a filling time for completely filling the mold with the molten mass of the at least one material; and a property of the at least one material of the component. The benefits of doing so demonstrates a simple procedure with which it is possible the shrinkage behavior of the molded part between both individual cavities of a multiple tool as well as Cycle to cycle of a spraying process. (PRIAMUS SYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES AG [Description | pdf page 2 of 7]). Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NISHIYAMA, in view of ZENG, in view of MENSLER, in view of ZHANG, in view of PLUMPTON, in view of SPRINGER, and in further view of HE (CN-105975562-A), herein HE.
Claim 14
Claim 14 is rejected because the combination of NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, ZHANG, PLUMPTON, and SPRINGER teaches the claim 12 limitations.
The combination of NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, ZHANG, PLUMPTON, and SPRINGER does not explicitly teach wherein the outputting of the at least one automatic report comprises providing guidance for one or more of a material adaption, a geometry adaption and an adaption of manufacturing parameters.
However, HE teaches wherein the outputting of the at least one automatic report comprises providing guidance for one or more of a material adaption, a geometry adaption and an adaption of manufacturing parameters HE ([Description | pdf page 3 of 10] “In the specification requirement according to the equipment and materials recorded in material inventory list, automatically retrieve and mate all satisfactory brand factories Family's list, is then that unit price and the quantity of the corresponding producer brand of equipment choice is counted automatically from this brand producer list according to user (providing guidance) Calculate the preliminary budget table generating this engineering drawing (adaption of manufacturing parameters)…See also HE ([Description | pdf page 3 of 10] “Due in the present invention, utilizing works Drawings and documents Chinese version information automation extraction technology, it is achieved that BOM element from Dynamic statistical analysis and report output (outputting), and the automatically generating of preliminary budget table (at least one automatic report), thus it is big to overcome data volume, manual operations is loaded down with trivial details. The shortcomings such as inefficiency, error rate are high. It addition, when engineering drawing document changes (quantity of graphic element or brand Select difference) time, system can carry out budget result synchronization automatically (providing guidance for one or more of a material adaption, a geometry adaption and an adaption of manufacturing parameters), without extra manual operations, thus improves accurately Degree and work efficiency… See also HE [Description | pdf page 6 of 10] “Each part A material inventory list can be generated, including items of information such as title material, parameter specification, unit, quantity.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of HE with NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, ZHANG, PLUMPTON, and SPRINGER as the references deal with methods, systems, computer programs and products shall be proposed for improving the process of designing a molding process for manufacturing at least one component. HE would modify NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, ZHANG, PLUMPTON, and SPRINGER wherein the outputting of the at least one automatic report comprises providing guidance for one or more of a material adaption, a geometry adaption and an adaption of manufacturing parameters. The benefits of doing so can realize the organic unity of design drawing and Project Budget easily. (HE [Summary of the Invention | pdf page 3 of 10]). Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim(s) 16 are rejected under are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NISHIYAMA, in view of ZENG, in view of MENSLER, in view of ZHANG, in view of PLUMPTON, and in further view of KANETO (US 20040093104 A1), herein KANETO.
Claim 16
Claim 16 is rejected because the combination of NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, and ZHANG teaches the claim 1 limitations.
The combination of NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, ZHANG, and PLUMPTON does not explicitly teach wherein the method comprises using at least one requesting computer and at least one processing computer, wherein the processing computer retrieves the three-dimensional geometrical data from the requesting computer, performs at least steps b )-c ), and outputs the interpretation result in step d) to the requesting computer, wherein the requesting computer and the processing computer communicate via at least one web interface.
However, KANETO teaches wherein the method comprises using at least one requesting computer and at least one processing computer, wherein the processing computer retrieves the three-dimensional geometrical data from the requesting computer, performs at least steps b )-c ), and outputs the interpretation result in step d) to the requesting computer,
wherein the requesting computer and the processing computer communicate via at least one web interface KANETO ([0058] “The design support apparatus having the above described structure can be implemented, for example, on an ordinary computer system as shown in FIG. 4, comprising a CPU 21 (processing computer), a memory 22, an external storage 23 such as an HDD, a reader 25 for reading information (retrieves the three-dimensional geometrical data) from a portable storage medium 24 such as a CD-ROM, a DVD-ROM, or the like, an input unit 26 such as a keyboard or a mouse, a display unit 27 such as a CRT or LCD, and a communication unit 28 (requesting computer) for communicating with a network such as Internet (wherein the requesting computer and the processing computer communicate via at least one web interface), when the CPU 21 executes certain programs (performs at least steps b )-c ), and outputs the interpretation result in step d) to the requesting computer) (a 3D-CAD, CAM or CAE program for implementing the model generation unit 12, a three-dimensional flow analysis program (wherein the processing computer retrieves the three-dimensional geometrical data from the requesting computer) for implementing the flow analysis unit 13, a residual strain (stress) estimation program for implementing the residual strain (stress) estimation unit 14, and a three-dimensional strength analysis program for implementing the strength analysis unit 15) loaded onto the memory 22. These programs may be directly loaded onto the memory 22 from a storage medium 24 through the reader 25, or from a communication medium such as Internet through the communication unit 28. Or, these programs may be once downloaded onto the external storage 23 before loaded onto the memory 22.”) See also KANETO ([Figure 3] and [Figure 4].)
PNG
media_image4.png
545
679
media_image4.png
Greyscale
KANETO Figure 3 Reference
PNG
media_image5.png
621
882
media_image5.png
Greyscale
KANETO Figure 4 Reference
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of KANETO with NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, ZHANG, and PLUMPTON as the references deal with methods, systems, computer programs and products shall be proposed for improving the process of designing a molding process for manufacturing at least one component. KANETO would modify NISHIYAMA, ZENG, MENSLER, ZHANG, and PLUMPTON wherein the processing computer retrieves the three-dimensional geometrical data from the requesting computer. The benefits of doing so provide an arrangement where the strength of the resid mold product made of the thermosetting resin can be predicted accurately. (KANETO [Abstract]). Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN K VU whose telephone number is (703)756-5944. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am to 4:30 pm M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Renee Chavez can be reached on 571-270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.K.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights