DETAILED ACTION
Claims 15 and 17-32 are presented for examination.
This Office Action is in response to submission of documents on October 14, 2025.
Interpretation of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as being “means plus function” claiming.
Rejection of claims 15-32 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Rejection of claims 15, 17, 19, and 29-32 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu is withdrawn.
Rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Xu in view of Zuo is maintained.
Rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Xu in view of Zuo and Matei Xu is withdrawn.
Rejection of claims 21-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Xu in view of Pletner Xu is withdrawn.
Rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Xu in view of Pletner and Venkatasubramanian Xu is withdrawn.
Rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Xu in view of Pletner and Mourllion Xu is withdrawn.
Rejection of claim 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Xu in view of Yang is withdrawn.
Rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Xu in view of Heirman Xu is withdrawn.
Rejection of claims 15, 17-19, and 29-32 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being obvious over Xu in view of Zuo.
Rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Xu in view of Zuo and Matei.
Rejection of claims 21-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Xu in view of Zuo and Pletner.
Rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Xu in view of Zuo, Pletner, and Venkatasubramanian.
Rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Xu in view of Zuo, Pletner, and Mourllion.
Rejection of claim 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Xu in view of Zuo and Yang.
Rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Xu in view of Zuo and Heirman.
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 interpretation of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), Examiner is not persuaded by Applicant’s argument that a “data processing device,” as claimed, has a specific structure. The claim does not recite any structural elements at all and therefore, by interpreting the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the structure of the “data processing device” is limited to the structure disclosed in the Specification. As pointed out by Applicant, the structure that is disclosed in the Specification (and not recited in the claim) can be found at least at [0015], [0029], and [0030]. Accordingly, the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is maintained and is interpreted to cover structure disclosed in the Specification and its equivalents.
Regarding rejection of claims 15-24 and 28-32 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Examiner is persuaded by the amendments to the claims. Accordingly, pending rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
Regarding claims 25-27, Examiner is not persuaded by the amendments to claim 25. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained.
Regarding rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, Examiner is not persuaded by Applicant’s arguments. Applicant asserts that “Examiner has erred by overlooking the fact that the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter under ‘Step 2 Prong Two’ and the ‘improvement to the functioning of a computer.’” Response at pg. 8. The MPEP states:
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an ‘‘inventive concept’’). MPEP 2106.04, Subsection II(A)(2).
As set forth in the rejection, the only additional elements in claim 15, for example, are “a computer-aided method” and the step of “providing domain-specific models….” “Because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.” MPEP 2106.04, Subsection II(A)(2). Thus, because the additional elements do not integrate the claim into a practical application, the argument that the claim does so is not persuasive. Further, neither of these elements (generic computer components and a step of providing a model) improve the operation of a computer. Therefore, the analysis set forth in the previous rejection is proper.
The cited portions of the Specification are further unpersuasive as to how the additional elements incorporate the judicial exceptions into a practical application or improve the operation of a computer. The Response does not further elaborate on this point and therefore the cited portions of the Specification are similarly non-persuasive.
Regarding rejection of claim 31 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, Examiner is not persuaded. The claim is directed to a “computer program product” and further, the claimed product is “embodied on a computer-readable non-transitory medium.” Thus, the claim is not directed to the non-transitory medium but to what is stored on the medium. Accordingly, the claim is directed to the computer program, which is not a process, product, manufacture, or composition of matter. Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “A computer program product comprising a computer-readable non-transitory medium storing instructions to perform the method of claim 1” or “A computer-readable non-transitory medium storing instructions to perform the method of claim 1.” In those instances, the claim would be directed to a manufacture and therefore fall into one of the four categories.
Regarding rejection of claim 32, Examiner is not persuaded. As previously indicated, claim 15 is not patent eligible and therefore a device that executes the method of claim 15 is similarly patent ineligible. The claim is the equivalent of reciting a judicial exception and further reciting “apply it” with generic computer components. Of further note, the claim does not even recite specific generic computer components. Therefore, the “device” is interpreted as having the structure (i.e., components) disclosed in the Specification.
Regarding the rejection of claims 15, 17, 26-27, and 29-32 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu, Examiner agrees that Xu does not disclose at least “an electric motor,” as now clarified by the amendments. Accordingly, rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)(1) are withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of the claims using the combination of Xu and Zuo for teaching the limitation of “wherein the prespecified technical structure is an electric motor,” as previously recited in claim 16, Examiner is not persuaded by the arguments. The argument that was asserted, to paraphrase, is that the process of vibration problems addressed in Zuo can be adapted to additional components of a machine. For example, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art apply the model order reduction of Zuo to other types of models, such as an electric motor, as disclosed in Zuo. Besides the underlying type of machine that being different, the same analysis can be performed. Thus, in generalizing the analysis in Zuo to be applicable to other vehicle components, the resulting process is more versatile and can be applied to additional components. Accordingly, the rejections asserted herein rely on Zuo to reject the limitation “an electric motor.” Previous rejections are withdrawn, but replaced with rejections including Zuo where the addition of the clarified “an electric motor” is recited.
Further, Examiner is not persuaded by the argument that the combination of Xu and Zuo lacks motivation. Examiner disagrees. Both references are related to simulation of machines. In Xu, the simulation splits the machine simulation into component models and, for each of the models, performs modal analysis. The models are then coupled to simulate the entire machine. Similarly, Zuo is directed to analysis of components of a machine, in this case, an electric motor. In both instances, models are utilized. Besides modeling different types of components, the models and individual component analysis of Xu can be applied to the electric motor of Zuo which, like the machine of Xu, is comprised of various components. Because the same system can be utilized for different types of machines, a person having skill in the art would be motivated to apply the disclosed system to an electric motor, thereby reducing development time.
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitation(s) is/are: A data processing device configured to automatically to execute… in claim 32. The claim recites “data processing device,” which is a generic placeholder that is does not have a specific structural meaning. Further, the claim recites “configured to,” which is a linking phrase that links the generic placeholder to its function.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For example, “[a] further aspect of the present invention is the aforementioned device for data processing. This device has means for executing, in particular automatically or semi-automatically, at least one variant of the method according to the invention. These means can in particular be the means described in connection with the aforementioned data-processing facility. Therefore, the device according to the invention can in particular have a corresponding processor, a data memory and at least one input and/or output interface for executing the method or the corresponding computer program or program code.” Spec. at [0030]. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/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 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.
Claim 25-27 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 25 recites “the original coordinates,” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim. Accordingly, Examiner interprets “the original coordinates” to be “coordinates of the domain-specific models.” Further, claim 25 recites “modal coordinates,” which is unclear because claim 15 also initially recites “modal coordinates.” For example, it is unclear whether the original coordinates are converted to the same modal coordinates as was recited in claim 15 (i.e., to perform modal analysis) or if “the original coordinates” are converted into different modal coordinates. Thus, the claim lacks clarity as to what is being converted after the modal analysis.
Claims 26 and 27 are rejected for being dependent upon a claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to software per se. The claim does not cover the “computer-readable non-transitory medium,” which would fall into the category of a manufacture. Instead, the claim is directed to “a computer program product embodied on a computer-readable non-transitory medium,” which is software. See also MPEP 2106.03.
Claims 15-32 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 step of providing data and recitation of generic computer components are not significantly more than a recited judicial exception.
Claim 15
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 15
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 15
A computer-aided method for generating a digital model of an electric motor, the computer aided method comprising:
providing domain-specific models of prespecified components of the electric motor based on digital 3D geometry data of the prespecified components, wherein the 3D geometry data specify a structure of the prespecified components in a predetermined coordinate system, and wherein the domain-
specific models describe a behavior of the respective component in a respective physical-technical domain,
performing a model order reduction based on the domain-specific models present in the predetermined coordinate system by
converting the domain-specific models into modal coordinates and using the modal coordinates to
determine a spectral behavior of the prespecified components of the electric motor by a modal analysis,
generating, based on the spectral behavior, state space representations for the prespecified components as order-reduced spectral models, and
coupling, for a simulation of the electric motor as a whole, the order-reduced spectral models of the prespecified components with one another to form the digital model which describes the behavior of the electric motor across a plurality of domains, wherein the simulation of the electric motor is carried out based on the digital model as part of a development process in order to adapt a design of the components to real loads that occur.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Concepts
Generating a model is a mathematical concept that includes using measurements of a physical object and performing one or more calculations to generate a digital version of the object that can be utilized to simulate behavior of the object. The simulated behavior is performed by executing one or more mathematical functions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Concepts
Conversion of coordinates is a mathematical concept that can include, for example, performing a linear transformation using a conversion matrix to transform a set of values into a different set of values. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Concepts
Performing modal analysis includes performing one or more calculations to determine how a system performs, which includes solving one or more equations to generate an analysis that indicates how the system components interact with each other and how those interactions affect the system. Performing modal analysis for some systems can additionally be performed by a human using pencil and paper when the system is abstracted to a simpler modal form. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Concepts
Generating state space representations includes performing one or more mathematical calculations (e.g., matrix manipulations and differential equations). See Spec. at [0017] and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes
Coupling of models can be performed by a human by observing the physical system and identifying models of components. Then, the object model can be constructed by selecting models and indicating how the behaviors of each individual model are related. This can be performed using pencil and paper (for simpler systems) and/or with the aid of a generic computer (e.g., using software to select models and indicating how the models relate to each other. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III. Further, one or more steps of the coupling can include performing mathematical calculations to determine how to construct the model of the object, which can be utilized for simulating the physical object. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
The claim recites that the “simulation of the electric motor is carried out based on the digital model as part of a development process in order to adapt a design of the components to real loads that occur.” However, this feature recites an intended use of the simulation and does not effectively limit the claimed method. “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), which suggests “adapted to” as a non-limiting feature. Because “carrying out the simulation” or “adapting a design” are not required steps of the claim, this feature is not analyzed as a separate feature of the claim.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim 1 limitations recite (bolded for additional element identification):
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2
A computer-aided method for generating a digital model of an electric motor, the computer aided method comprising:
providing domain-specific models of prespecified components of the electric motor based on digital 3D geometry data of the prespecified components, wherein the 3D geometry data specify a structure of the prespecified components in a predetermined coordinate system, and wherein the domain-
specific models describe a behavior of the respective component in a respective physical-technical domain,
performing a model order reduction based on the domain-specific models present in the predetermined coordinate system by
converting the domain-specific models into modal coordinates and using the modal coordinates to
determine a spectral behavior of the prespecified components of the electric motor by a modal analysis,
generating, based on the spectral behavior, state space representations for the prespecified components as order-reduced spectral models, and
coupling, for a simulation of the electric motor as a whole, the order-reduced spectral models of the prespecified components with one another to form the digital model which describes the behavior of the electric motor across a plurality of domains, wherein the simulation of the electric motor is carried out based on the digital model as part of a development process in order to adapt a design of the components to real loads that occur.
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), e.g., 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).
Providing data (i.e., transmitting data) is an extra-solution activity that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The limitation does not recite, with specificity, how the data is provided and therefore does not improve the functioning of a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
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. For claim 15, the preamble recites the “computer-implementation” of the judicial exception. The additional element is the equivalent of reciting a judicial exception and instructing to “apply it.” See MPEP 2106.05(f). Courts have found that the recitation of generic computer components does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See 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, the claim recites “providing…models” (i.e., transmitting data) to perform the judicial exception. Transmitting data is an extra-solution activity that courts have found does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). The type of data and/or contents of the data are irrelevant to the analysis because it is the step of “providing” that is the additional element irrespective of the form of the data. For example, the claim does not recite a step of “generating domain-specific models” or “generating 3D geometry data.” Thus, the features of “domain-specific models” and “3D geometry data” are essentially the same as a limitation of “providing data.”
Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 17
Claim 17 recites using the simulation for generating a digital representation as a digital model or a digital twin of the electric motos. Using a model and/or simulation to predict the behavior of a system is a mathematical concept that includes performing one or more operations according to functions that describe the system. Thus, a simulation is the judicial exception of a mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 18
Claim 18 recites wherein the prespecified components are selected from at least one of a housing, a rotor, a stator, a cooling facility and an active electric part of the electric motor. Limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use is an additional elements that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, limitations that indicate a particular field of use are insignificantly more than the recited judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010); Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USPQ2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See, e.g., Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (limiting use of abstract idea to the Internet); Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (limiting use of abstract idea to use with XML tags). Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 19
Claim 19 recites wherein the domain-specific models each model or describe properties or behavior of a respective prescribed component in a physical-technical domain. Using a model to predict the behavior of a system is a mathematical concept that includes performing one or more operations according to functions that describe the system. Thus, a simulation is the judicial exception of a mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 20
Claim 20 recites wherein the domain-specific models relate to at least one of mechanics, electrics, electrodynamics, thermal properties and thermodynamics, wherein the domain-specific models have a reduced complexity in comparison to a complete model. Limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use is an additional elements that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, limitations that indicate a particular field of use are insignificantly more than the recited judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010); Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USPQ2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See, e.g., Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (limiting use of abstract idea to the Internet); Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (limiting use of abstract idea to use with XML tags). Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 21
Claim 21 recites determining in the respective modal analysis for the components a modally decoupled mass matrix M and stiffness matrix K, based on the equation of motion for the respective prescribed component, arranging the modally decoupled mass matrix M and the stiffness matrix K via state space representation so as to yield the following results for one degree of freedom:
PNG
media_image1.png
231
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
80
647
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The limitation recites mathematical equations, which are the judicial exception of mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I. Accordingly, claim 21 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 22
Claim 22 recites wherein the respective modal analysis is only performed for a prespecified frequency range. The claim merely limits the application of the analysis and does not add significantly more to the judicial exception. Performing the analysis is a mathematical concept, which is a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I. According, claim 22 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 23
Claim 23 recites wherein the prespecified frequency range is between 0 Hz and 2 kHz. The claim merely limits the application of the analysis and does not add significantly more to the judicial exception. Performing the analysis is a mathematical concept, which is a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I. Accordingly, claim 23 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 24
Claim 24 recites wherein the respective modal analysis is only performed for a prespecified number of the highest-energy modes. The claim merely limits the application of the analysis and does not add significantly more to the judicial exception. Performing the analysis is a mathematical concept, which is a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I. Accordingly, claim 24 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 25
Claim 25 recites performing, after the modal analysis, a conversion of the original coordinates of the domain-specific models into modal coordinates or a conversion of the modal coordinates back into other coordinates, for the model order reduction, for a prespecified selection of discrete observation points at which an external effect of the electric motor as a whole is determined during the simulation. Conversion of coordinates is a mathematical concept that can include, for example, performing a linear transformation using a conversion matrix to transform a set of values into a different set of values. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I. Further, “selection of discrete observation points” is a mental process that can be performed by a human using pencil and paper or a generic computing device. For example, a human can evaluate the system and select observation points, based on experience, that will result in desired output. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III. Further, claim 27 includes additional limitations that indicate that, in some instances, the observation points are selected “automatically.” Thus, the limitation in claim 25 must be broader than the additional limitation, indicating that the claim covers some non-automatic selection methods. Accordingly, claim 25 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 26
Claim 26 recites wherein a number of discrete observation points is at most 1000. The claim merely recites, with more specificity, the limitation of claim 25. The claim does not include any additional elements and thus does not integrate the claim into a practical application and/or recite significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Accordingly, claim 26 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 27
Claim 27 recites automatically establishing the discrete observation points in the digital 3D geometry data for the components in dependence on a prespecified category of the component. The claim recites a mental process that is performed “automatically.” The “automated” performance of the mental step could be performed by a computing device (not claimed), which would be an additional element of a generic computing device. Thus, the claim amounts to reciting a judicial exception and reciting “apply it.” See Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972). Accordingly, claim 27 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 28
Claim 28 recites when generating the digital representation of the electric motor, employing idealized coupling elements for connecting at least some of the spectral models of the components to one another or to prespecified further elements of idealized coupling members, or both. The claim merely further specifies the type of element to utilize when performing the “coupling” step of claim 15. Thus, the limitations do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and/or amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 28 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 29
Claim 29 recites connecting at least one of the spectral models of the components to at least one prespecified digitized ambient component which represents an environment of the electric motor in a planned real application, and generating a digital representation of an installation for the simulation which includes the electric motor. Generating and utilizing “digital” and/or “digitized” components is a mathematical concept and therefore an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I. “Connecting” components is a mental process that a human can perform using a pencil and paper and/or software executing on a generic computing device, which is also an abstract idea without significantly more. Accordingly, claim 29 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 30
Claim 30 recites initially representing the at least one ambient component by at least one idealized element, and replacing the at least one idealized element in an iterative improvement process of the digital representation by a finite element model or by an order- reduced spectral model of the at least one ambient component derived from the at least one idealized element. Using a model and/or simulation to predict the behavior of a system is a mathematical concept that includes performing one or more operations according to functions that describe the system. Thus, a simulation is the judicial exception of a mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I. Accordingly, claim 30 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 31
Claim 31 recites A computer program product embodied on a computer-readable non- transitory medium and comprising computer commands which, when read into a memory of the computer and executed by a processor of a computer, cause the processor to automatically execute the method of claim 15. The claim includes substantially the same limitations as claim 15. Accordingly, claim 31 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 32
Claim 32 recites A data processing device configured to automatically to execute the computer commands of the computer program product of claim 31. 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), e.g. 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). Accordingly, claim 32 is 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 15, 17-19, and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Xu, et al. (“Vibration Control of a High-Speed Precision Servo Numerically Controlled Punching Press: Multidomain Simulation and Experiments,” hereinafter “Xu”) in view Zuo (“Integrative simulation and analysis of induction motor and control system,” hereinafter “Zuo”).
Claim 15
Xu discloses:
A computer-aided method for generating a digital model of
Multidomain model of the high-speed precision servo punching press based on SimulationX. Xu at Figure 5 caption.
See also Figure 5(a) and 5(b), each illustrating a “digital representation” of a structure.
providing domain-specific models of prespecified components of
In this study, the multidomain model of the punching press was composed of subsystems for the mechanism, servomotor, and stamping die. The mechanical subsystem consisted of the frame, movable crossbeam, gear sets, slider, lead screws, crankshaft-connecting rod mechanisms, and the connecting joints between mechanisms. Xu at pg. 4, paragraph 2.
“Subsystems” is analogous to “domain-specific models.”
wherein the 3D geometry data specify a structure of the prespecified components in a predetermined coordinate system, and
A coordinate system was established, in which the top dead centers of the slider and frame were considered the initial points in each motion period (as shown in Figure 8). Xu at Xu at pg. 5, paragraph 4.
wherein the domain-specific models describe a behavior of the respective components in a respective physical-technical domain,
Operational motions of the slider and frame were predicted in multidomain simulation with the aim to calculate the vibration quantity of the punching press. Xu at pg. 5, paragraph 4.
performing a model order reduction based on the domain-specific models present in the predetermined coordinate system by converting the domain-specific models into modal coordinates and using the modal coordinates,
These presses are generally considered as a mass-spring-damper system with one degree of freedom (DOF), ignoring the stiffness and damping of connection parts among components. The present study establishes a mass-spring-damper vibration system with three DOFs of the punching press (see Figure 1) as shown in Figure 3, considering the relative motion between the slider and frame. Xu at pg. 2, paragraph 4.
A multidomain model of the punching press was established (see Figure 5) considering the structure and vibration model, and a physical object-oriented modeling method was selected and developed using the multidomain system dynamics platform SimulationX. Xu at pg. 4, paragraph 2.
A three-dimensional model of each component of the punching press was imported into the SimulationX platform using the CAD-import element. Xu at pg. 4, col. 2.
See also Figure 5(a), illustrating a reduced-order model of the structure.
determine a spectral behavior of the prespecified components by a respective modal analysis, and
Table 5 gives the natural frequency of each order of vibration of the frame, slider, and movable crossbeam obtained in freedom modal analysis… Xu at pg. 10, paragraph 3.
See also Figure 16, illustrating various behavior based on the model.
generating based on the spectral behavior state space representations for the prespecified components as order-reduced spectral models,
See Table 4, illustrating “experimental and theoretical values of acceleration of main components for different speeds of the servomotor (m/s2).”
The servomotor is one of the components of the structure.
coupling, for a simulation of the electric motor as a whole, the order-reduced spectral models of the prespecified components with one another to form the digital model which describes the behavior
During the physical object-oriented modeling, physical relationships are established through a potential and flow rate; specifically, each node in the model contains a series of potential rates, and each connecting interface that links to the same node contains the same number of potential rates. Xu at pg. 4, paragraph 2.
The “connecting interface” is a coupling of two component models to form the “digital representation.”
See also Figure 5(a), illustrating the model comprised of subcomponent models coupled to each other.
wherein the simulation of the electric motor is carried out based on the digital model as part of development process in order to adapt a design of the components to real loads that occur.
With the continuous development of punching presses, vibration issues have become more diverse and complex, and the integrality of a punching press has gradually been considered in studies aimed to the determination of their capabilities. Vibration problems of punching presses are closely related to mechanical, servomotor, NC control, and hydraumatic subsystems. Hence, single-disciplinary modeling and simulation cannot satisfy all the complex requirements needed for proper design of a punching press. Xu at Xu at pg. 1, col. 2.
Xu does not appear to disclose:
an electric motor
Zuo, which is analogous art, discloses:
an electric motor.
Whereas, comprehensive analysis of induction motor and its control system needs considering both the control strategy of control system and motor running performance. Thus, theoretically, it is necessary to establish an integrative simulation model, combining the two separate model simulations together and considering their coupling effects. Zuo at pg. 2142, paragraph 1.
Zuo is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are related to modeling physical structures by coupling sub-component models. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine Xu and Zuo to result in generating a coupled modeling system, as disclosed in Xu, for an induction motor, as disclosed in Zuo. Motivation to combine includes extension of the modeling methods of Xu to additional types of physical structures, thus improving versatility of the system.
Claim 17
Xu discloses:
further comprising using the simulation for generating a digital representation as a digital model or a digital twin of
Several groups of equal and opposite stamping forces were set in the subsystem of the stamping die, according to the stamping condition of the punching press. Figure 6 shows the progressive stamping die [13] adopted to manufacture the heat exchanger fin (see Figure 2), and the theoretical force of each stamping position is given in Table 2 [13]. The stamping forces were imposed at each relevant position of the upper and lower die simultaneously during the simulation, as shown in Figure 5, in accordance with the blank layout (see Figure 7) of the heat exchanger fin and dimensions of the working positions.
The model is utilized to simulate behavior of the structure during operation. Thus, the model (as also illustrated in Figure 16) is a “digital twin” of the press. Xu at pg. 4, paragraph 3.
Claim 18
Xu does not appear to disclose:
wherein the prespecified components are selected from at least one of a housing, a rotor, a stator, a cooling facility and an active electric part of the electric motor.
Zuo discloses:
wherein prescribed components are selected from at least one of a housing, a rotor, a stator, a cooling facility and an active electric part of the electric motor.
Whereas, comprehensive analysis of induction motor and its control system needs considering both the control strategy of control system and motor running performance. Thus, theoretically, it is necessary to establish an integrative simulation model, combining the two separate model simulations together and considering their coupling effects. Zuo at pg. 2142, paragraph 1.
In the process of finite element modeling, the band is put in the air gap between stator and rotor, which is used to separate the motion part from static part of the motor in running condition. Then, transient resolver should be chose as the model resolver. There are two critical steps in the motor finite element modeling part before being combined to integrative model.
Claim 19
Xu discloses:
wherein the domain-specific models each model or describe properties or behavior of a respective prescribed component in a physical-technical domain.
Figure 10 shows the simulated rotational speed curve of the crankshaft and the displacement of the slider under the condition of zero-load operation. Xu at pg. 7, paragraph 2.
Claim 29
Xu discloses:
connecting at least one of the spectral models of the components to at least one prespecified digitized ambient component which represents an environment
Contact between the frame and subsoil under the punching press is taken into account by linear springs with viscous damping. Xu at pg. 2, paragraph 4.
See also FIG. 3.
Figures 15(a), 15(b), and 15(c) show that the maximum deformation areas for the first three vibration modes are distributed on the upper four corners of the frame.
Figure 15 illustrates the “real application” of the model.
The “subsoil” is “an environment” of the press.
Claim 30
Xu discloses:
initially representing the at least one ambient component by at least one idealized element, and replacing the at least one idealized element in an iterative improvement process of the digital representation by a finite element model or by an order- reduced spectral model of the at least one ambient component derived from the at least one idealized element.
Multidomain models of the punching press containing the foundation were established (see Figure 17(b)), where the foundation is considered a rigid body [22] (and the load-carrying capacity of the subsoil under the foundation is considered as 55 kN/m3 in this paper). Xu at pg. 13, paragraph 2.
Table 8 presents vibration reduction effects of another series of foundations with the same rectangular-base dimensions, while the height of the foundation increased gradually. The results reveal that stiffness of the subsoil remained unchanged while the damping decreased with an increase in the height of the foundation as shown in Table 8. Damping ratio ζz of the subsoil is inversely proportional to the square root of the total mass mB of the punching press and the foundation, as expressed in (6) [22, 26], while vibration amplitudes of the frame and the slider decreased with an increase in the height of the foundation as shown in Table 8. Xu at pg. 14, paragraph 2.
The “foundation” is an “ambient component” and “is considered a rigid body,” which is “idealized.”
Claim 31
Xu discloses:
A computer program product embodied on a computer-readable non- transitory medium and comprising computer commands which, when read into a memory of a computer and executed by a processor of the computer, cause the processor to automatically execute
A multidomain model of the punching press was established (see Figure 5) considering the structure and vibration model, and a physical object-oriented modeling method was selected and developed using the multidomain system dynamics platform SimulationX. Xu at pg. 4, paragraph 2.
The claim further recites performing the method that is substantially the same as the method disclosed in claim 15. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons and based on the same prior art as claim 15, claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu.
Claim 32
Xu discloses:
A data processing device configured to automatically to execute the computer commands of the computer program product
A multidomain model of the punching press was established (see Figure 5) considering the structure and vibration model, and a physical object-oriented modeling method was selected and developed using the multidomain system dynamics platform SimulationX. Xu at pg. 4, paragraph 2.
The claim further recites executing a program that performed the method that is substantially the same as the method disclosed in claim 15. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons and based on the same prior art as claim 15, claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Xu in view of Zuo and Matei (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0384871).
Claim 20
Xu discloses:
wherein the domain-specific models relate to at least one of mechanics, electrics,
All the flow rates in the model satisfy the balance equations. In this study, the multidomain model of the punching press was composed of subsystems for the mechanism, servomotor, and stamping die. The mechanical subsystem consisted of the frame, movable crossbeam, gear sets, slider, lead screws, crankshaft-connecting rod mechanisms, and the connecting joints between mechanisms. The subsystem of the stamping die consisted of the progressive stamping die and the stamping forces generated during the forming of the heat exchanger fin. The mechanical subsystem was connected to the subsystem of the servomotor through the gear set. Xu at pg. 4, paragraph 2.
Xu does not appear to disclose:
wherein the domain-specific models relate to at least one of , electrodynamics, thermal properties and thermodynamics,
wherein the domain-specific models have a reduced complexity in comparison to a complete model.
Zuo discloses:
wherein the domain-specific models relate to at least one of mechanics, electrics, electrodynamics,
Induction motor and its control system consist of induction motor and power inverter. The motor system performance relies on the combined action of the two parts which are coupled with each other closely. That is, the motor is drove by the power inverter and the power inverter receives electromagnetic field feedback from the motor.
wherein the domain-specific models have a reduced complexity in comparison to a complete model.
For the whole system designers, they could find the design defect immediately in integrative simulation, and then adjust the parameter of the motor and control circuit by using the integrative simulation platform. Then, the performance of the system can be optimized in this process of integrative modeling and simulating.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the structures disclosed in Zuo with the methods of modeling analysis disclosed in Xu to result in a system that can perform modal analysis of subcomponent models of various structure. Motivation to combine includes improving the versatility of the system to facilitate modeling of other types of structures.
Xu and Zuo do not appear to disclose:
wherein the domain-specific models relate to at least one of
Matei, which is analogous art, discloses:
wherein the domain-specific models relate to at least one of
FIG. 3 illustrates a model of a generic physical component 300 as may be modeled by systems and methods as described herein. The example physical component 300 has two connectors 310, 320. Each connector is modeled with two variables: a flow variable ƒ and a potential like variable x. Matei at [0023].
Referring to the physical system 400 illustrated in FIG. 4, an example partial physical model 150 can include a model for each of known components 410, 420, 430, as well as a description of how the components are connected and the interaction of each of the connectors of each of the components. Matei at [0027].
Matei is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are related to simulating systems that are comprised of subcomponent models. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the methods of Xu with the structures disclosed in Matei to result in a system that can perform modal analysis of subcomponent models of various structures. Motivation to combine includes improving the versatility of the system to facilitate modeling of other types of structures..
Claims 21-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Xu in view of Zuo and Pletner (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0189145).
Claim 21
Xu discloses:
determining in the respective modal analysis for the
These presses are generally considered as a mass-spring-damper system with one degree of freedom (DOF), ignoring the stiffness and damping of connection parts among components. Xu at pg. 2, paragraph 5.
The reference describes efforts by others that use one degree of freedom in similar models.
Xu does not appear to disclose:
determining in the respective modal analysis for the components a modally decoupled mass matrix M and stiffness matrix K, based on the equation of motion for the respective prescribed component, arranging the modally decoupled mass matrix M and the stiffness matrix K via state space representation so as to yield the following results
PNG
media_image1.png
231
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
80
647
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Pletner, which is analogous art, discloses:
determining in the respective modal analysis for the components a modally decoupled mass matrix M and stiffness matrix K, based on the equation of motion for the respective prescribed component, arranging the modally decoupled mass matrix M and the stiffness matrix K via state space representation so as to yield the following results for one degree of freedom:
PNG
media_image1.png
231
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
80
647
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For our analysis, we choose to command the three servo actuators in unison as a one degree of freedom actuator for Z-direction positioning. Pletner at [0121].
See Pletner at [0101]-[0107]:
PNG
media_image3.png
60
220
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
216
521
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
47
207
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
29
115
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Pletner is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are related to modal analysis of systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to apply the equations of Pletner to the modeling methods of Xu to result in a system that performs modal analysis as described in Pletner to reduce vibrations of a structure. Motivation to combine includes expected results from the combination since both the models of Xu and the equations of Pletner result in a similar solution to the modal analysis.
Claim 22
Xu does not appear to disclose:
wherein the respective modal analysis is only performed for a prespecified frequency range.
Pletner discloses:
wherein the respective modal analysis is only performed for a prespecified frequency range.
Alternatively, a modal procedure can be used to solve
PNG
media_image7.png
41
336
media_image7.png
Greyscale
with a number of user-selected low-frequency vibration mode taken into account. Pletner at [0098]-[0099].
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Xu in view of Zuo, Pletner, and Venkatasubramanian (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0222144).
Claim 23
Xu and Pletner do not appear to disclose:
wherein the prespecified frequency range is between 0 Hz and 2 kHz.
Venkatasubramanian, which is analogous art, discloses:
wherein the prespecified frequency range is between 0 Hz and 2 kHz.
The method 206 can also include performing a SVD on the calculated power density spectrum within a frequency range of interest (e.g., 0.1 to 2.0 Hz or other desired frequency range)… Venkatasubramanian at [0065].
In this subsection, several embodiments of the method 200 were tested against simulation data for known systems. First, a system with a poorly damped mode was tested. Usually, for purposes of illustration, a mode with a damping ratio less than 3% is considered poorly damped, while a mode with a damping ratio larger than 8% is well damped. A linear time-invariant ("LTI") system with four pairs of poles was created in state space form as in equation (1). The order of matrix A is 8, with four modes at 0.25, 0.4, 0.7, and 0.9 Hz, respectively. Venkatasubramanian at [0069].
Venkatasubramanian is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are related to modal analysis of a system. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine Venkatasubramanian with Xu to result in a system that only evaluates low frequency oscillations. Motivation to combine includes reducing the complexity of the analysis such that only the modes of interest are evaluated, thus improving computer resource usage.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Xu in view of Zuo, Pletner, and Mourllion (“Modal truncation for linear Hamiltonian systems : a physical energy approach,” hereinafter “Mourllion”).
Claim 24
Xu and Pletner do not appear to disclose:
wherein the respective modal analysis is only performed for a prespecified number of highest-energy modes.
Mourllion, which is analogous art, discloses:
wherein the respective modal analysis is only performed for a prespecified number of highest-energy modes.
This paper proposes a new criterion to select the eigenmodes to be left out in a modal truncation procedure. This criterion takes account of the dynamics of the system on the one hand and, on the other hand, the input/output matrices of the system. Therefore, this approach is satisfactory from a system and control theory point-of-view. Moreover, this criterion is physically meaningful because its computation is directly linked with the physical energy supplied to each eigenmode.
Mourllion is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are related to modal analysis techniques. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the methods of Xu, utilizing the equations of Pletner, to perform modal analysis as disclosed in Mourllion. Motivation to combine includes reducing the complexity of the modal analysis by eliminating terms that do not significantly contribute to the system. Thus, the analysis would consume less computing time and resources due to its reduction in complexity.
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Xu in view of Zuo, and Yang (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20180084195).
Claim 25
Xu discloses:
for a prespecified selection of discrete observation points at which an external effect of
Contact between the frame and subsoil under the punching press is taken into account by linear springs with viscous damping. Xu at pg. 2, paragraph 4.
The “subsoil” is “an external effect” on the model, which is connected to the structure model at the spring and damper with stiffness values k3 and c2. Thus, the behavior of the system relative to the subsoil can be observed at these locations.
Xu and Zuo do not appear to disclose:
Yang, which is analogous art, discloses:
performing, after the modal analysis, a conversion of the original coordinates of the domain-specific models into modal coordinates or a conversion of the modal coordinates back into other coordinates, for the model order reduction,
The method may further include magnifying an ith modal coordinate of the modal coordinates by: scaling the ith modal coordinate by a positive coefficient to compute a scaled ith modal component; scaling each non-ith modal coordinate other than the ith modal coordinate by a negative coefficient to compute one or more non-ith scaled modal coordinates; and applying an inverse transform on the scaled ith modal coordinate and the one or more non-ith scaled modal coordinates to compute an ith-mode magnified vibration motion function. Yang at [0010].
Yang is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are related to modal analysis of a system. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the conversions described in Yang to the results obtained by Xu to result in performing coordinate conversion only for the points of interest (i.e., “observation points”). Motivation to combine includes reducing computation time by only performing conversions for point of interest to the user.
Claim 26
Xu discloses:
wherein a number of discrete observation points is at most 1000.
Contact between the frame and subsoil under the punching press is taken into account by linear springs with viscous damping. Xu at pg. 2, paragraph 4.
See also FIG. 3.
Less than 1000 observation points are utilized for the model.
Claim 27
Xu discloses:
automatically establishing the discrete observation points in the digital 3D geometry data for the components in dependence on a prespecified category of the component.
In the present study, to address the aforementioned vibration problem, a mathematical model of vibration and multidomain models of a punching press were established. Dynamic characteristics of the punching press were predicted in the multidomain simulation. Structural modification of the frame and improvement of the foundation were carried out to reduce vibrations. Once validated against experimental measurements, the multidomain model was used to discuss the influencing factors of vibrations under different conditions. Xu at pg. 2, paragraph 2.
The present study establishes a mass-spring-damper vibration system with three DOFs of the punching press (see Figure 1) as shown in Figure 3, considering the relative motion between the slider and frame. Xu at pg. 2, paragraph 5.
These presses are generally considered as a mass-spring-damper system with one degree of freedom (DOF), ignoring the stiffness and damping of connection parts among components. Xu at pg. 2, paragraph 5.
For a “category” of presses, the model of Figure 3, with the “observation points” of the damper and spring attached to the subsoil, are “generally considered,” which is analogous to “automatically establishing” the observation points based on the “category.”
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Xu in view of Zuo and Heirman (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0098499).
Claim 28
Xu does not appear to disclose:
when generating the digital representation
Heirman, which is analogous art to the claimed invention, discloses:
when generating the digital representation of the
The bulk deformation of each tooth (i.e., the far-field deformation or deformation spaced from the contact surface) is a non-trivial combination of bending, shearing and twisting. Even at high loading conditions, it is reasonable to assume that the deformation is small and that materials typically used for gears behave linearly. The same load applied at different locations along the tooth blank and profile generate a different deformation of the tooth. Heirman at [0049].
“Assumption that deformation is small” is an idealized coupling element between the gear teeth.
Heirman is analogous art to the claimed invention because both relate to subcomponent modeling of a structure. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine Xu with Heirman to result in a system that uses idealized elements to couple subcomponent models to each other. Motivation to combine includes reducing model complexity, thus improving efficiency of the modal analysis by reducing the calculations required at the coupling of the models.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ansys Blog, “How to Model and Simulate Complex Electric Motors.”
Rassolkin, et al., “Digital Twin of an Electrical Motor Based on Empirical Performance Model.”
Rouleau, et al., “A comparison of model reduction techniques based on modal projection for structures with frequency-dependent damping.”
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