DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 and 2 are presented for examination.
This Office Action is in response to submission of documents on May 15, 2025.
Objection to the specification based on its arrangement as well as formal requirements are withdrawn.
Objection to the claims for minor clarity issues are withdrawn.
Rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for not disclosing sufficient structure to enable the claimed functionality is withdrawn.
Rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that the inventors regard as the invention is withdrawn.
Rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Shimbo in view of Hiwatari, Uenishi, and Honma is withdrawn.
Interpretation of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as including functional language.
New rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that the inventors regard as the invention.
Rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to unpatentable subject matter is withdrawn.
New rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Shimbo in view of Hiwatari and Honma.
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
Regarding rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Examiner is not persuaded by the amendments. Although the claims no longer recite “large,” which is a relative term, the amended claims replace the term with “maximum,” which now renders the claim indefinite for being unclear. See rejection below for additional details. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained on different grounds.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Examiner is persuaded by the arguments and amendments to the claims. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant asserts that “a sheet thickness optimized for each mesh of a specified vibration transmission frame part model” is not taught by Uenishi. Response at pg. 11. However, while Uenishi is cited as teaching a portion of this limitation, Hiwatari is also cited as teaching the limitation with the exception of teaching that the thickness optimization process is not performed on a mesh by mesh basis but instead for the model. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Hiwatari, which optimizes thickness for a portion of the model (in this case, the entire model) with Uenishi, which teaches optimizing individual meshes of the model for some characteristic, to result in a method that optimizes meshes for optimal panel thickness. Accordingly, Examiner is not persuaded by the argument.
Applicant further asserts that Uenishi does not teach dividing the model “into groups each having a predetermined range of sheet thicknesses,” as alleged. Further, Applicant asserts that Uenishi does not teach dividing into groups because it teaches “combining ‘adjacent two or more of the elements’ after the sheet thickness reduction rate is calculated for each element.” Response at pg. 12. While Examiner agrees that Uenishi teaches a “sheet thickness reduction rate,” Examiner further contends that, under reasonable interpretation and the disclosure of Uenishi, a “sheet thickness reduction rate” is analogous to a “sheet thickness” because both are related to a thickness of a sheet at a given mesh location. Further, based on Applicant’s Specification, a “range of sheet thicknesses” is not given a definition, thus Examiner has interpreted the limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure. Referring to FIG. 6 versus FIG. 7, it appears that dividing the model into groups requires identifying those areas where the meshes have similar optimized thicknesses and specifying each of those areas as a divided area (and further performing the same optimization but on the larger divided areas). Accordingly, because Uenishi taches combining adjacent mesh elements into groups (i.e., “grouping”) and groups according to an analogous characteristic (i.e., related to sheet thickness), Examiner is not persuaded by the arguments. The rejection is maintained.
Regarding the argument that “Hiwatari's teaching of correcting plate thickness is unrelated to thickness of each of the divided areas as claimed, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have only been motivated to correct an overall plate thickness rather than ‘a sheet thickness... for each divided area of the specified vibration transmission frame part model.’” Response at pg. 12. Examiner is not persuaded by the argument because, as presented, the rejection does not purport to teach the “divided area” portion of the claim because Shimbo, Uenishi, and Homan include teachings related to “divided areas.” For example, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to review the teachings of Hiwatari and apply the same principles of thickness correction that Hiwatari discloses as being utilized for an entire part to a mesh that comprises a portion of the entire part. The adaptation would not require significant or undue experimentation to apply the same principles to a smaller section and would require only minor modifications. The combination would result in a process that results in an analogous analysis under the reasonable interpretation given to the references and the claims.
After reviewing the previously cited references, it is apparent that Uenishi is not needed as a reference in a rejection of the claims. Instead, the combination of Shimbo in view of Hiwatari and Honma teaches all of the limitations, as currently presented. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-2 are withdrawn and new rejections are asserted. Thus, Applicant’s arguments directed to the teachings of Uenishi are moot.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations in claim 2 are:
A vibration noise reduction analyzer
“Analyzer” is a generic placeholder (i.e., “nonce term”) that does not have a specified structural meaning.
The term “analyzer” is followed by the functional language “used for.”
The term “used for” is not modified by sufficient structure to perform the claimed function (i.e., “reducing vibration noise…”).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 2 has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as using functional claiming language (see Claim Interpretation, above) and does not disclose a structure for the following components of the claimed system:
an automotive body mesh model acquisition unit;
a specific frequency band selection unit;
a vibration transmission frame part model specification unit;
an individual mesh sheet thickness optimization unit;
a divided area setting unit for a vibration transmission frame part model;
an individual divided-area sheet thickness optimization unit and;
a divided area and optimal sheet thickness determination unit.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected for not reciting any steps for the recited method. Although a number of processes are claimed (an automotive body mesh model acquisition process, a specific frequency band selection process, etc.), the claim does not include a step of, for example, “executing the…process” for any of the recited processes. Accordingly, instead of claiming a method, the claim merely recites a listing of processes that exist, either together or separately1. Proper amendments are required.
Claim 2 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The term “maximum” in claims 1 and 2 is unclear because the Applicant refers a “maximum mesh vibration energy” but not what is “maximum” about the specified model. As currently recited, it is unclear whether the limitation should be interpreted as meaning that a “vibration transmission frame part model” is specified because the maximum vibration energy of the specified model has its maximum energy at the “specific frequency” (i.e., Model 1 is chosen over Models 1-4 because the highest energy of Model 1 is at the specific frequency), the specified model has the highest vibration energy at the specific frequency when taking into account all of the models (i.e., Model 1 is specified because its maximum energy at the specific frequency is higher than Model 2, Model 3, Model 4, etc.), or some other intended meaning for the limitation. Clarification is required.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected for reciting the following limitations, which lack antecedent basis and/or are used to refer to more than one component (references are to the Response of the Applicant on May 5, 2026):
“the actual vibration transmission frame part” at pg. 4, line 17;
Further, the claims recite “an exciter of an automobile,” which indicates a physical component (e.g., an engine) and further “the exciter is set in at least one of the vibration transmission frame part models,” indicating that the exciter is a software component (i.e., part of a model). Thus, the structure of the “exciter” is unclear.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimbo, et al. (Japanese Pat. Doc. No. JP2015185143) in view of Hiwatari (Japanese Pat. Doc. No. JP2002297670) and Honma (Japanese Pat. Doc. No. JP2000268196).
Claim 1
Shimbo discloses:
A vibration noise reduction analysis
Then, in order to effectively implement these various anti-vibration and soundproofing measures, the vibration analysis of the floor panel structure of the vehicle body is performed by the finite element method (FEM), and the peak frequency of the floor panel vibration and the location of the peak are specified. Shimbo at [0004].
used for reducing vibration noise in a panel part caused by vibrations transmitted from an exciter of an automobile to the panel part through vibration transmission frame parts, the method comprising:
It is known that the vibration from the frame member to which the engine and the suspension are connected is transmitted to the floor panel, and this floor panel vibrates, resulting in generation of unpleasant cabin vibration and noise emission from the floor panel. Shimbo at [0002].
Heretofore, in order to suppress these vibration noises, it has been generally practiced to apply a damping material or a damping material to the floor panel and each part of the vehicle body in the vicinity thereof as various vibration damping and soundproofing measures. It is also known to increase the rigidity by forming a large number of beads on the floor panel or increasing the thickness of the panel… Shimbo at [0003].
The following limitations are repeated elsewhere in the claim with specific limitations for each. Thus, each of these processes are taught or suggested by at least the same reasons as the subsequent specific limitations according to the corresponding rejections:
an automotive body mesh model acquisition process;
a specific frequency band selection process for a vibration noise reduction target panel part model;
a vibration transmission frame part model specification process;
an individual mesh sheet thickness optimization process;
a divided area setting process for a vibration transmission frame part model; an individual divided-area sheet thickness optimization process; and
a divided area and optimal sheet thickness determination process for a vibration transmission frame part,
wherein the automotive body mesh model acquisition process includes acquiring an automotive body mesh model including the vibration noise reduction target panel part model and vibration transmission frame part models
The vibration analysis model creating apparatus 2 includes a base model creating unit 10 that creates a finite element model (hereinafter referred to as a "base model") obtained by dividing the floor panel structure of a vehicle into meshes, and a panel in the floor panel structure based on the base model. And a contraction model generation unit 12 for generating a contraction model in which the mass of the image is contracted to the boundary between the panel and the frame. Shimbo at [0017].
The floor panel structure of the vehicle body has a frame forming the frame and a panel fixed to the frame. For example, the simplified model 14 schematically shown in FIG. 2 has a square frame 16 and a square panel 18 coupled to the inner peripheral side of the frame 16. The outer shape of the frame 16 is a square having a side length of 550 mm in a plan view, and the cross-sectional shape of the frame 16 is a square closed cross section having a side length of 50 mm. The outer shape of the panel 18 is a square having a side length of 450 mm in plan view. Each of the frame 16 and the panel 18 has a thickness of 1 mm. Shimbo at [0019].
obtained by modeling the panel part as a vibration noise reduction target and the vibration transmission frame parts that transmit vibrations from the exciter, each having meshes, and in at least one of the vibration transmission frame part models,
In FIG. 1, the code symbol 1 shows a vibration analysis apparatus. The vibration analysis apparatus 1 analyzes a response when an external force is applied to a floor panel structure of a vehicle body, and generates a vibration analysis model of the floor panel structure based on design data and the like of the floor panel structure… Shimbo at [0016].
It is known that the vibration from the frame member to which the engine and the suspension are connected is transmitted to the floor panel, and this floor panel vibrates, resulting in generation of unpleasant cabin vibration and noise emission from the floor panel. Shimbo at [0002].
the specific frequency band selection process for the vibration noise reduction target panel part model includes obtaining frequency characteristics of equivalent radiated power (ERP) of the vibration noise reduction target panel part model as a vibration noise index of the panel part as the vibration noise reduction target, and
The unpleasant vibration transmitted from such an engine or suspension is mainly 400 Hz or less in a car, and particularly has a peak at a frequency around 250 Hz which is road noise caused by tire cavity resonance. Shimbo at [0002].
FIG. 5 is a diagram in which the results of frequency response analysis of the base model 20 and the reduced model 22 of the simplified model 14 are superimposed and displayed using a common coordinate axis, and the horizontal axis represents frequency (Hz) and the vertical axis Shows ERP (W). In FIG. 5, the frequency response of the base model 20 is indicated by a solid line, and the frequency response of the contraction model 22 is indicated by a broken line. As shown in FIG. 5, since the frequency response of the base model 20 includes modes resulting from the resonance of the panel 18 itself and the resonance of the frame 16, there are multiple ERP peaks over a wide frequency band. Shimbo at [0026].
selecting a specific frequency band based on the obtained frequency characteristics of the equivalent radiated power (ERP),
Heretofore, in order to suppress these vibration noises, it has been generally practiced to apply a damping material or a damping material to the floor panel and each part of the vehicle body in the vicinity thereof as various vibration damping and soundproofing measures. It is also known to increase the rigidity by forming a large number of beads on the floor panel or increasing the thickness of the panel, thereby shifting the natural frequency of the floor panel to a high band higher than 400 Hz. In other words, the unpleasant vibration noise is reduced by preventing the floor panel from resonating at the resonance frequency of the suspension, the cavity resonance frequency band of the tire, or the like. Shimbo at [0003].
Then, in order to effectively implement these various anti-vibration and soundproofing measures, the vibration analysis of the floor panel structure of the vehicle body is performed by the finite element method (FEM), and the peak frequency of the floor panel vibration and the location of the peak are specified. Shimbo at [0004].
The “peak panel vibration” is analogous to the selected frequency, obtained from FIG. 5.
the vibration transmission frame part model specification process comprises includes obtaining vibration energy of each mesh in the vibration transmission frame part models and the vibration noise reduction target panel part model, and
The vibration analysis model creating apparatus 2 includes a base model creating unit 10 that creates a finite element model (hereinafter referred to as a "base model") obtained by dividing the floor panel structure of a vehicle into meshes, and a panel in the floor panel structure based on the base model. Shimbo at [0017].
In order to achieve the above object, according to the present invention, the vibration analysis device is a vibration analysis device that executes a vibration analysis of a floor panel structure of a vehicle body having a frame member and a floor panel fixed to the frame member. Shimbo at [0010].
specifying a vibration transmission frame part model that has a maximum mesh vibration energy in the specific frequency band of the vibration noise reduction target panel part model from the vibration transmission frame part models,
That is, the vibration analysis of the floor panel structure 24 in such a manner that each vibration mode of the floor panel 28 can be accurately and easily distinguished between the mode due to the resonance of the floor panel 28 itself and the mode due to the resonance of the frame member 26 The result can be output. Shimbo at [0044].
That is, in order to reduce the ERP in the range of frequency F1 or less, it is sufficient to take measures on the frame member 26 so as to suppress the resonance of the frame member 26. In order to reduce the ERP in the range of frequency F1 or more It can be understood that measures should be taken on the floor panel 28 so as to suppress the resonance of the floor panel 28 itself. Shimbo at [0039].
a manufacturing process of manufacturing the actual vibration transmission frame part, by tailored blank forming, having the determined divided areas and the optimal sheet thickness.
As a result, a user of a steel material, such as an automobile manufacturer, can ultimately pursue weight reduction and cost reduction in a self-contained manner, and can immediately provide a new material developed as a steel manufacturer. Manufacturers and consumers can enjoy great benefits from each other. Shimbo at [0068].
Shimbo does not appear to disclose:
A…manufacturing method for automotive panel parts…
obtaining a sheet thickness optimized for each mesh of a specified vibration transmission frame part model by performing sheet thickness optimization analysis to optimize the sheet thickness with an objective function set to minimization of the equivalent radiated power in the specific frequency band of the vibration noise reduction target panel part model, a constraint set to a total weight of the specified vibration transmission frame part model equal to or less than a predetermined weight, and a design variable set to the sheet thickness of each mesh of the specified vibration transmission frame part model,
the divided area setting process for a vibration transmission frame part model includes setting divided areas obtained by dividing the specified vibration transmission frame part model into groups each having a predetermined range of sheet thicknesses based on the optimized sheet thickness of each mesh obtained at the individual mesh sheet thickness optimization process,
the predetermined range of sheet thickness is set to facilitate manufacturing an actual vibration transmission frame part, such as by tailoring blank forming, while reducing vibration noise,
the individual divided-area sheet thickness optimization process includes obtaining a sheet thickness optimized for each divided area of the specified vibration transmission frame part model by performing sheet thickness optimization analysis to optimize the sheet thickness with the objective function set to minimization of the equivalent radiated power in the specific frequency band of the vibration noise reduction target panel part model, the constraint set to a total weight of the specified vibration transmission frame part model equal to or less than the predetermined weight, and the design variable set to the sheet thickness of each of the divided areas of the specified vibration transmission frame part model, and
the divided area and optimal sheet thickness determination process for a vibration transmission frame part includes determining divided areas of the vibration transmission frame part corresponding to the specified vibration transmission frame part model, and an optimal sheet thickness of each of the divided areas based on the divided areas of the specified vibration transmission frame part model and the sheet thickness optimized for each of the divided areas;
Hiwatari, which is analogous art, discloses:
A…manufacturing method for automotive panel parts…
As a result, a user of a steel material, such as an automobile manufacturer, can ultimately pursue weight reduction and cost reduction in a self-contained manner, and can immediately provide a new material developed as a steel manufacturer. Manufacturers and consumers can enjoy great benefits from each other. Honma at [0068].
As a result, a user of a steel material, such as an automobile manufacturer, can ultimately pursue weight reduction and cost reduction in a self-contained manner, and can immediately provide a new material developed as a steel manufacturer. Manufacturers and consumers can enjoy great benefits from each other. Honma at [0068].
the individual mesh sheet thickness optimization process includes obtaining a sheet thickness optimized for
A method of designing a steel product, comprising: a step of correcting at least one of a plate thickness and a shape; and a step of re-evaluating the formability, rigidity, and strength. Hiwatari at [0010].
Further, rigidity refers to a property that can withstand elastic deformation due to bending, torsion, vibration, and the like. Further, the strength refers to an absorbed energy, a deformation amount, and the like when subjected to plastic deformation due to an impact load or the like. Hiwatari at [0056].
“Correcting” combined with “re-evaluating” is analogous to optimization.
objective function set to minimization of the equivalent radiated power in the specific frequency band of the vibration noise reduction target panel part model,
In the rigidity CAE, a simulation of elastic deformation such as bending, torsion, and vibration applied to the part is performed (step S14), and it is evaluated whether rigidity satisfying the required specifications is obtained (step S15). Then, the plate thickness, welding method, reinforcing material, etc. are changed, and the rigidity is evaluated again (step S16). In particular, Calculate the amount of deformation such as torsion angle and deflection at the longitudinal position of the car body, verify whether the amount of deformation and vibration mode for the input load of each member is within the allowable range, and if within the allowable range, The strength CAE is performed. Hiwatari at [0046].
“Rigidity” is analogous to “vibration.”
a constraint set to a total weight of the specified vibration transmission frame part model equal to or less than the predetermined weight, and
Even if all the specifications are satisfied as a result of each of the above CAEs, for example, by reviewing the used material standards, the optimum value can be set in the direction of reducing the weight of the entire material body and reducing the overall cost. Hiwatari at [0056].
“Optimum value” is a constraint.
the design variable set to the sheet thickness
By performing the forming CAE, it is possible to simulate how the thickness distribution of the formed automobile part changes, as shown in FIG. 4, for example, defects such as cracks and wrinkles, springs and the like. It can be evaluated whether molding can be performed without causing shape defects such as bags. Hiwatari at [0040].
the individual divided-area sheet thickness optimization process includes obtaining a sheet thickness optimized for model by performing sheet thickness optimization analysis to optimize the sheet thickness with the
A method of designing a steel product, comprising: a step of correcting at least one of a plate thickness and a shape; and a step of re-evaluating the formability, rigidity, and strength. Hiwatari at [0010].
Further, rigidity refers to a property that can withstand elastic deformation due to bending, torsion, vibration, and the like. Further, the strength refers to an absorbed energy, a deformation amount, and the like when subjected to plastic deformation due to an impact load or the like. Hiwatari at [0056].
“Correcting” combined with “re-evaluating” is analogous to optimization.
objective function set to minimization of the equivalent radiated power in the specific frequency band of the vibration noise reduction target panel part model,
In the rigidity CAE, a simulation of elastic deformation such as bending, torsion, and vibration applied to the part is performed (step S14), and it is evaluated whether rigidity satisfying the required specifications is obtained (step S15). Then, the plate thickness, welding method, reinforcing material, etc. are changed, and the rigidity is evaluated again (step S16). In particular, Calculate the amount of deformation such as torsion angle and deflection at the longitudinal position of the car body, verify whether the amount of deformation and vibration mode for the input load of each member is within the allowable range, and if within the allowable range, The strength CAE is performed. Hiwatari at [0046].
“Rigidity” is analogous to “vibration.”
a constraint set to a total weight of the specified vibration transmission frame part model equal to or less than a predetermined weight, and
Even if all the specifications are satisfied as a result of each of the above CAEs, for example, by reviewing the used material standards, the optimum value can be set in the direction of reducing the weight of the entire material body and reducing the overall cost. Hiwatari at [0056].
“Optimum value” is a constraint.
Hiwatari is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are related to performing simulations of vibrations applied to a vehicle component to determine a thickness to reduce the vibrations. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the vibration analysis of Shimbo, using finite element modeling, with the thickness correction process of Hiwatari to result in a system that performs finite element analysis to determine an optimum panel thickness for a vehicle component to reduce a specified vibration frequency. Motivation to combine includes using a finer resolution of the determined thickness, rather than a uniform thickness of a part, to determine a thickness for smaller components of the frame. Thus, with smaller adjustments in thickness of particular areas, greater accuracy can be achieved when fabricating a part, which improves vibration reduction more than a uniformly thick part.
Honma, which is analogous art to the claimed invention, discloses:
a sheet thickness optimized for each mesh of the specified
However, in the case of an apparatus or a part made of a pipe or a plate material, a plate is set based on a strength analysis result using a mesh model in order to make an optimum setting of a plate thickness or the like using the result of the strength analysis. It is desirable that the thickness is corrected, the strength analysis is performed again using the corrected thickness, and this operation is repeated as necessary. In such a case, it is conceivable that the solid model is also corrected each time the plate thickness is corrected, and the corrected solid model is re-divided into analysis elements. Honma at [0004].
The “analysis elements” are analogous to the “meshes,” which are divided portions of the solid model and are generated each time a plate thickness is optimized (i.e., “corrected).
the divided area setting process for
In step 6, the thickness attribute data of the adjacent shells are compared, and those having the same thickness attribute data are grouped so as to be in the same group. Honma at [0020].
Having the “same thickness attribute data” is analogous to a “predetermined range of sheet thicknesses.”
the divided area and optimal sheet thickness determination process for a vibration transmission frame part comprises determining divided areas of the vibration transmission frame part corresponding to the specified vibration transmission frame part model, and an optimal sheet thickness of each of the divided areas based on the divided areas of the specified vibration transmission frame part model and the sheet thickness optimized for each of the divided areas.
An automatic thickness setting apparatus according to the present invention comprises: a solid / mesh model conversion unit for creating a mesh model surface including a large number of lattice points of a finite element model inside a solid model; A grid point thickness calculator that calculates the thickness, a shell thickness average calculator that calculates the average thickness of each shell based on the thickness of the solid model at a plurality of grid points that define each shell, and a shell thickness average calculator And a shell standard thickness attribute data storage unit for converting the average value of the thickness of each shell determined by the section into a standard thickness and storing the converted data as the thickness attribute data of the shell. Honma at [0012].
Honma is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are related to determining an optimal thickness of a vehicle part using a mesh model. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Honma with the other references to result in a process that determines the thickness of the part while also simplifying the required manufacturing process of the part. Motivation to combine includes reduction in manufacturing complexity thus further reducing manufacturing time in manufacturing the part according to the model.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites “a vibration noise reduction analyzer…comprising” a plurality of units that performs steps substantially the same as the steps performed as part of the processes recited in Claim 1. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons and based on the same prior art, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP 2008246542: Discloses manufacturing a panel using blank forming.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH MORRIS whose telephone number is (703)756-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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.
JOSEPH MORRIS
Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/JOSEPH P MORRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
1 For purposes of examination, each of the processes is assumed to be performed and in the order that the processes appear in the claim. Thus, each of the “processes” are not given patentable weight, but the steps of each process are interpreted as being a limitation that limits the method in some form.
Prosecution Insights