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Objection to the specification based on its arrangement as well as formal requirements are withdrawn.
Objection to the claims for minor clarity issues are withdrawn.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of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for not disclosing sufficient structure to enable the claimed functionality is withdrawn.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indefinite for failing point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that the inventors regard as the invention is withdrawn.
Rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Shimbo in view of Hiwatari, Brennan, and Honma is withdrawn.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 maintained.
New rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Shimbo in view of Hiwatari, Uenishi, 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 the previously submitted IDS on March 28, 2022, Applicant has indicated that the description of the NPL included in the specification is sufficient to satisfy the requirements and that the Examiner should reissue the signed IDS without lining through the reference. However, “Each information disclosure statement must further include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information listed that is not in the English language. The concise explanation may be either separate from the specification or part of the specification. If the concise explanation is part of the specification, the IDS listing should include the page(s) or line(s) numbers where the concise explanation is located in the specification.” MPEP 609.04(a). Accordingly, the IDS is not being reissued with the foreign refence being considered.
Regarding the specification, Examiner accepts Applicant’s assertion that the Specification is in an acceptable format, including the spacing of the submitted disclosure.
Regarding Objection to claims 1 and 2, Examiner agrees that the amended claims clarify the discrepancies. Accordingly, the objection to claims 1 and 2 are withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Examiner is not persuaded by the arguments and amendments to the claims. Applicant asserts that the claims recite a technological improvement because they claims recite that “the predetermined range of sheet thickness is set to facilitate manufacturing an actual vibration transmission frame part, such as by tailored blank forming, while reducing vibration noise….” See Response at pg. 9. Besides the now-pending rejection for the clause being indefinite (see rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), below), the limitation is directed for an intended use of the “range of sheet thickness;” that is, a range that set to “facilitate manufacturing.” “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation.” MPEP 2103(I)(C). Accordingly, the claims do not overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the asserted technological improvement is not a necessary element of the claim. Rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained.
Regarding the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), Examiner agrees that the addition of “an arithmetic processor…” to the claim overcomes the rejection. Accordingly, rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is withdrawn.
Regarding rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Examiner agrees that the antecedent basis issues have been addressed. Accordingly, the rejection is withdrawn. New rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are asserted herein based on amended claim language.
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, Examiner does not agree that there is no motivation to combine Brennan and Hiwatari because, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, a mesh model can be set that encompasses the entirety of the hood, therefore the size of the elements of the mesh is irrelevant to application of Hiwatari. However, additional amendments to the claim necessitated additional searching, and an alternate reference (“Uenishi”) is asserted as explicitly teaching a mesh model whereby a car part is divided into multiple elements and a sheet thickness reduction optimization is performed on each element. Accordingly, the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn and a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is asserted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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.
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.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The term “large” in claims 1 and 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, the “vibration energy” is not claimed as being larger than a value or other variable. The value of “large” can vary between applications and therefore the term is indefinite.
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…”).
The following include the nonce term “unit” followed by the linking language “configured to,” which is functional language to perform the subsequently claimed functions:
an automotive body mesh model acquisition unit
a specific frequency band selection unit for a vibration noise reduction target panel part model
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
a divided area/optimal sheet thickness determination unit for a vibration transmission frame part
The terms “configured to” are not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
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 § 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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exceptions without significantly more. The claims recite mathematical calculations and mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements that are recited in the claims are extra-solution activities that do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because courts have found that the steps of data gathering and recitation of generic computer components and ideas of a solution are not significantly more than a judicial exception.
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim is directed to a process, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim 1 limitations include (bolded for abstract idea identification):
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1
A vibration noise reduction analysis method for automotive panel parts, the method being executed by a computer and
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:
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
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 the exciter is set in at least one of the vibration transmission frame part models,
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
selecting a specific frequency band based on the obtained frequency characteristics of the equivalent radiated power (ERP),
the vibration transmission frame part model specification process includes obtaining vibration energy of each mesh in the vibration transmission frame part models and the vibration noise reduction target panel part model, and
specifying a vibration transmission frame part model that has large vibration energy in the specific frequency band of the vibration noise reduction target panel part model from the vibration transmission frame part models,
the individual mesh sheet thickness optimization process includes 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 facilitate1 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.
Each of these limitations is recited in greater detail in the remainder of the claim. Accordingly, analysis for each of these limitations is provided below.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Calculations
A model of a physical object is a mathematical construct that includes one or more equations to model the behavior of the object. Thus, modeling the panel part is a mathematical concept. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
“Selecting a specific frequency” is a mental process that can be performed by a human using pencil and paper and requires observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. For example, a human can review a mapping or graph of the ERP characteristics and select a particular frequency based on observing the characteristics. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Specifying a model is a mental process that requires observation, evaluation, opinion, and judgment. For example, a human can review a number of potential models and select a model that, in his/her opinion, “greatly” contributes to vibrations. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Calculations
Optimization analysis includes performing one or more calculations, changing one or more variables, and re-evaluating the calculations. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
The divided areas cab be set by a human using pencil and paper and/or with the aid of a computer to visualize the model results and divide the frame into areas based on the thickness determined from the model. The selection of the divided areas requires observation and evaluation to determine where divisions should occur. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Calculations
Optimization analysis includes performing one or more calculations, changing one or more variables, and re-evaluating the calculations. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim 1 limitations recite (bolded for additional element identification):
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2
A vibration noise reduction analysis method for automotive panel parts, the method being executed by a computer and
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:
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
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 the exciter is set in at least one of the vibration transmission frame part models,
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
selecting a specific frequency band based on the obtained frequency characteristics of the equivalent radiated power (ERP),
the vibration transmission frame part model specification process includes obtaining vibration energy of each mesh in the vibration transmission frame part models and the vibration noise reduction target panel part model, and
specifying a vibration transmission frame part model that has large vibration energy in the specific frequency band of the vibration noise reduction target panel part model from the vibration transmission frame part models,
the individual mesh sheet thickness optimization process includes 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 facilitate2 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.
Reciting generic computer components is the additional element of instructions to apply the recited judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f), Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Using a simulation to reduce vibration noise is an idea of a solution that is not recited with specificity such that it integrates the judicial exception into a practical application and/or improves a technology. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). For example, the claim does not recite fabricating a panel part nor does the claim recite how the results of the simulation are utilized in reducing vibration noise.
The limitation is directed to the extra-solution activity of data gathering. The limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the claim and thus is minimally or tangentially related to the invention. See MPEP 2106.05(g). For example, the limitation recites obtaining models but does not recite utilizing the models. The remainder of the limitation indicates how the models are generated, but the process of obtaining the models, once generated and executed, is recited without any specificity regarding how the model is received.
The limitation is directed to the extra-solution activity of data gathering. The limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the claim and thus is minimally or tangentially related to the invention. See MPEP 2106.05(g). For example, the limitation indicates that frequency characteristics are obtained from a model, but does not recite how the data is transmitted and/or generated. Obtaining data from a simulation result is a necessary activity that encompasses all applications of the simulation and thereby does not impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception.
The limitation is directed to the extra-solution activity of data gathering. The limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the claim and thus is minimally or tangentially related to the invention. See MPEP 2106.05(g). For example, the limitation does not recite executing the frame part model and/or otherwise indicate how the vibration energy is generated, obtained, and/or transmitted. Obtaining data from a simulation result is a necessary activity that encompasses all applications of the simulation and thereby does not impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception.
The limitation is directed to the extra-solution activity of data gathering. The limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the claim and thus is minimally or tangentially related to the invention. See MPEP 2106.05(g). For example, the limitation recites receiving (i.e., “obtaining”) data but does not recite how the data is obtained. Obtaining data from a simulation result is a necessary activity that encompasses all applications of the simulation and thereby does not impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception.
The limitation is directed to the extra-solution activity of data gathering. The limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the claim and thus is minimally or tangentially related to the invention. See MPEP 2106.05(g). For example, obtaining data from an analysis is a necessary activity that encompasses all applications of the analysis and thereby does not impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception.
Determining the divided areas of a frame part is an idea of a solution that is not recited with specificity such that it integrates the judicial exception into a practical application and/or improves a technology. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). For example, the limitation indicates that the dividing is performed based on the models and optimization, but does not recite, with specificity, how the model and optimization data is utilized in performing the dividing.
Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B, the inquiry is whether any of the additional elements (i.e., the elements that are not the judicial exception) amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The additional elements (i.e., elements that are not judicial exceptions) include ideas of a solution and mere data gathering. An idea of a solution has been found by courts to be insignificantly more than the judicial exception. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Similarly, courts have found that mere data gathering is an extra-solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s). See, e.g., In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982); OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites A vibration noise reduction analyzer for automotive panel parts, the analyzer being 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 analyzer comprising: an automotive body mesh model acquisition unit; a specific frequency band selection unit for a vibration noise reduction target panel part model; 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/optimal sheet thickness determination unit for a vibration transmission frame part…. This limitation recites generic computer components and units that perform the steps of the method recited in claim 1. Reciting generic computer components is the additional element of instructions to apply the recited judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f), Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Further, claim 1 has been rejected for reciting judicial exceptions and additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application and further do not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 2 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
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), Brennan (U.S. Patent No. 10,331,821), and Honma (Japanese Pat. Doc. No. JP2000268196).
Claim 1
Shimbo discloses:
A vibration noise reduction analysis method for automotive panel parts, the method being executed by a computer and
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 large 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].
Shimbo does not appear to disclose:
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:
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
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.
Further, Uenishi, which is analogous art to the claimed invention, discloses:
the predetermined range of sheet thickness is set to facilitate manufacturing an actual
In recent years, in the automobile industry, it has become an urgent problem to develop a vehicle structure capable of reducing injuries to a passenger at a time of collision. On the other hand, reduction in weight of the vehicle body is also important for improving fuel efficiency. For solving these problems, application of materials with higher strength, high-strength steel sheets as steel materials in particular, is considered. However, generally it is said that increase in strength leads to deterioration in formability. For expanding application, it is important to improve formability, particularly, stretch flange formability. Uenishi at col. 1, lines 14-34.
a sheet thickness optimized for each mesh of the specified
It was found that, using such a method, it is possible to perform simply and reliably fracture determination that has been difficult conventionally unless the element size is optimized because of dependence on the degree of local deformation of a fracture risk portion, a measurement method when determining a fracture limit, or the like. Uenishi at col. 7, lines 4-9.
the divided area setting process for 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 sheet thickness reduction rate or the maximum principal strain is calculated for each element (analyzing unit (step) 22). Thereafter, adjacent two or more of the elements are combined, the sheet thickness reduction rate or the maximum principal strain in the combined element is calculated (calculating unit (step) 24), and the element where a difference of the sheet thickness reduction rate or the maximum principal strain before and after combining is larger than a predetermined value is extracted as a fracture risk portion (extracting unit (step) 25). Uenishi at col. 11, lines 41-50.
Uenishi is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are related to determining an optimal thickness of a vehicle part using a finite element analysis. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the finite mesh method of Uenishi with the vibration transmission model disclosed in the other references because, although different underlying formulas and natural phenomena are utilized to reduce thickness of a vehicle part, the principle of utilizing a finite mesh element to each element of the mesh is the same. Motivation to combine includes reduction in calculation time over existing methods for determining a thickness reduction rate. See, e.g., Oenishi at col. 5, lines 30-47.
Still further, Honma, which is analogous art to the claimed invention, discloses:
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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 The “manufacturing” is not included as a process that is performed as a step in the claim. Accordingly, analysis of “manufacturing” the actual part is not being considered as a limitation of the claim.
2 The “manufacturing” is not included as a process that is performed as a step in the claim. Accordingly, analysis of “manufacturing” the actual part is not being considered as a limitation of the claim.