DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-23 are presented for examination.
This Office Action is in response to submission of documents on March 13, 2026.
The interpretation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is withdrawn.
The rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is withdrawn.
The rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in part, maintained in part.
Rejection of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to unpatentable subject matter is maintained.
Rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 11, 13-14, 16-17, and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lu in view of Kumar and Musuvathy is maintained.
Rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lu in view of Kumar, Musuvathy, and Wu is maintained.
Rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lu in view of Kumar, Musuvathy, and Uzhumov is maintained.
Rejection of claims 9, 10, 12, 15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lu in view of Kumar, Musuvathy, and Ostoja-Starzewski is maintained.
Rejection of claims 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lu in view of Kumar, Musuvathy, and Bandara is maintained.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the submitted amendments change the claims such that interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is no longer necessary. Accordingly, interpretation of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is withdrawn. Additionally, rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is moot and therefore withdrawn herein.
Regarding rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Examiner has noted below which rejections remain asserted herein. The other claims rejections are hereby with withdrawn.
Regarding the amendments and argument related to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, Examiner is not persuaded for the following reasons:
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1. Response at pg. 11. Applicant indicates that the “MPEP instructs that claims must be evaluated as an “ordered combination” rather than by dissecting them into individual limitations and labeling each as abstract in isolation,” citing MPEP 2106.05(a). However, that portion of the MPEP is directed to analysis that is considered at Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B. Instead, “Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim.” MPEP 2106.04(II)(1). As asserted in the previous Office Action, the claims set forth or describe mental processes and mathematical concepts, both of which are abstract ideas.
Of particular importance for the present claims is that the inclusion of a mathematical equation necessarily sets forth a judicial exception: “The mere inclusion of a judicial exception such as a mathematical formula (which is one of the mathematical concepts identified as an abstract idea in MPEP § 2106.04(a)) in a claim means that the claim “recites” a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One.” MPEP 2106.04(II)(2).
Accordingly, Examiner maintains the interpretations of what constitutes an abstract idea for the purposes of Step 2A, Prong 1. As for Applicant’s arguments regarding the claims “the mathematical and computational operations recited in the claims are applied to a specific technological problem-the automated design of physical mechanical actuators made from lattice- structured metamaterials,” that is an inquiry that is addressed at Step 2A, Prong 2 and related to additional elements; i.e., elements that are not part of the abstract idea(s). Although the presence of abstract ideas does not preclude patentability, any elements that may impart patentable subject matter must be present outside of the claimed abstract ideas.
Applicant next argues that even if the claims recite judicial exceptions, the abstract ideas are integrated into a practical application. For the following reasons, Examiner respectfully disagrees:
Applicant argues that claim 1 results in “a concrete, tangible, and useful result: ‘providing digital data corresponding to said final design model of the mechanical actuator for manufacturing the mechanical actuator by metamaterial.’” Response at pg. 12. Providing data (regardless of what comprises the data and/or what the intended use of the data includes) is an extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data. The step is necessary for any design process because, in any instance, the final design (“digital data”) must be provided to another component for some purpose, such as storing the data, utilizing the data, and/or performing additional analysis on the data. Thus, the limitation does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application but instead recite additional steps performed after the judicial exceptions have generated the data.
Applicant next argues that the claims improve a technology. In support, Applicant states that “[t]he specification explains that prior art strategies for the design of metamaterial structures and machines were ‘based on the experience and talent of the designer,’ an approach that is ‘clearly insufficient to ensure industrial scale designs and applications of metamaterial machines, and, furthermore, does not guarantee the optimization of implementation efficiency.’” Response at pg. 12. Further, Applicant indicates that “[t]he claimed method addresses these deficiencies by providing an automated, computationally optimized design methodology that overcomes the limitations of human-driven design.” Id. However, as presented, the claims recite judicial exceptions and mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions using generic computer components. Further, because the claims can be more efficient that humans, the recitations do not necessitate such efficiency in all instances within the scope of the claim.
As argued with regards to Prong 2 of the analysis, Applicant next argues that limitations that are identified as judicial exceptions are more than an application of a mathematical technique. However, when analyzing the claims at Step 2A, Prong 2, only those elements that are “additional elements” (i.e., not abstract ideas) are analyzed to determine if any elements integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application or improve a technology. The claims include language that is already identified as judicial exceptions at Step 2A, Prong 1. The target of analysis at this step is only the additional elements, alone or in combination.
Regarding the identification of generic computer components and instructions to apply a judicial exception, Examiner is not persuaded. The term “computer-implemented method” directly implies that the recited method is instructions to be applied by a computer. Nothing in the claim recites a specificity to the computing device performing the method. The steps of the method are judicial exceptions (identified at Step 2A, Prong 1) and the method recites that those steps are instructions to be carried out by a computer. Accordingly, the limitations to application by a generic computer are additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor improve a technology.
Regarding claims 20-23 as being a practical application because the independent claim recites “manufacturing…” as a step, Examiner is not persuaded. The step is an idea of a solution and does not recite, with specificity, any details as to how the step is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Courts have found such a limitation to not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. 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).
With regards to the analysis under Step 2B, Applicant argues that the limitations of the claims, in an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. In support, Applicant lists steps that are alleged to be significantly more, including “defining an initial lattice model of metamaterial, defining groups of input, output, and removable nodes, iteratively modifying the lattice through pseudo-random computational algorithms, simulating the mechanical response, calculating a figure of merit, applying probabilistic acceptance/rejection criteria, re-adding previously removed nodes, repeating until an optimization criterion is met, and outputting digital data for manufacturing a physical actuator.” Response at pg. 13. However, these steps have all been identified as abstract ideas:
An inventive concept “cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.” Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 21-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 101 USPQ2d at 1968 (after determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, “we then ask, ‘[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?”) (emphasis added)); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract”). Instead, an “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). MPEP 2106.05(I).
Thus, because the only “what else” that is recited in the claims is additional elements that courts have found are not significantly more, the claims do not recite patentable subject matter.
Regarding rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, Examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments but is not persuaded. First, the claim does not require any iteration to include removing a node because, as claimed, a given iteration may not ever follow an iteration wherein a node is removed. The claim recites that “said step of modifying comprises at least one of removing a node” or additional modifications. Thus, for a given iteration that follows only iterations whereby nodes are added and/or only beams are modified, the limitation of the iteration requiring adding a node that was previously removed is not possible. Further, even in iterations whereby a previous node was removed, none of the steps of the iteration require that a node be removed for that iteration.
Further, the reference generally discloses a structure that can grow and shrink with iterations. Nothing in the reference teaches away from adding to the structure at a location where structure was previously removed. Accordingly, the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Musuvathy are maintained.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1
The term “figure of merit” is indefinite because it is a relative term that does not sufficiently limit the scope of the claim.
Claim 1 recites “wherein said step of modifying comprises at least one of….” The claim then lists several steps, but it is unclear which of those steps is included in the “at least one of” and which are additional steps performed subsequent to the modifying or as additional steps in the modifying step. For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as follows:
modifying a current test lattice, on the basis of a pseudo-random decision determined by a computational algorithm executed by said electronic processor, to obtain a modified test lattice, wherein said step of modifying comprises at least one of:
adding a node belonging to the third group of removable nodes,
removing beam afferent to a node belonging to the third group of removable nodes, and
adding a beam afferent to a node belonging to the third group of removable nodes; and
wherein said step of modifying also comprises accordingly reconfiguring the beams afferent to the removed or added node or to the nodes associated with the removed or added beams;
Thus, the step of modifying has two steps: 1) removing or adding one or more beams or nodes, and 2) reconfiguring the beams.
Applicant is required to amend to reflect this interpretation or to clarify the intended meaning and provide amendments in support of that interpretation.
Claim 8
The claim recites “a current test lattice,” which is already recited in claim 1.
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 1-23 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 reciting generic computer components 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 computer-implemented method for automated design of a mechanical actuator formed by lattice-structured metamaterial, wherein the method comprises the steps of:
defining a model of an initial lattice of said metamaterial and constituted by the repetition of basic geometric elements, either two-dimensional or three-dimensional, formed by a plurality of nodes connected by a plurality of beams;
defining, among the nodes of said lattice, the following groups of nodes:
at least one first group of input nodes, which constitute a respective at least one input region (RI) intended to receive a respective at least one input mechanical stimulus (Mi);
at least one second group of output nodes, which constitute a respective at least one output region (R2) intended to provide a respective at least one desired output mechanical movement (Mo), as a result of the action of the actuator;
a third group of removable nodes, distinct from said nodes of the first group and of the second group;
wherein the method further comprises the iteration of the following steps, carried out by an electronic processor:
modifying a current test lattice, on the basis of a pseudo-random decision determined by a computational algorithm executed by said electronic processor, to obtain a modified test lattice, wherein said step of modifying comprises at least one of: removing a node belonging to the third group of removable nodes; adding a node belonging to the third group of removable nodes; removing a beam afferent to a node belonging to the third group of removable nodes; adding a beam afferent to a node belonging to the third group of removable nodes and said step of modifying also comprises accordingly reconfiguring the beams afferent to the removed or added node or to the nodes associated with the removed or added beams;
simulating, by computational simulation executed in said electronic processor, the mechanical response of the modified test lattice, when at least one input mechanical stimulus is applied to said input nodes of the at least one first group,
to determine the consequent at least one output mechanical movement of said output nodes of at least one second group, and
to
establish the position of the input and output nodes of the modified test lattice in presence of said at least one input mechanical stimulus;
calculating a figure of merit of the modified test lattice, on the basis of the positions, established by said simulation, of the input and output nodes, in presence of at least one mechanical input stimulus;
either accepting or rejecting the modified test lattice, or establishing a probability of acceptance of the modified test lattice, on the basis of a comparison between the figure of merit of the current test lattice and the figure of merit of the modified test lattice;
defining the current test lattice for the subsequent iteration as the initial lattice at the first iteration, or, in subsequent iterations, as a present current test lattice if the modified test lattice was rejected, or as the modified test lattice if it was accepted;
wherein said iteration comprises at least one step in which a previously removed node is added again, and in which said iteration is repeated until a predefined criterion for optimizing the figure of merit is met;
at the end of the iteration, considering the current test lattice determined by the last iteration as final design model of the mechanical actuator, and
providing digital data corresponding to said final design model of the mechanical actuator for manufacturing the mechanical actuator by metamaterial.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Defining a model can be performed by a human and may include determining a shape for a lattice and/or a layout of lattices that model a physical material. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection II.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Defining nodes includes selecting a node and applying a label to the node based on its intended function. The process involves observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, which can be performed in the human mind. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection II.
Abstract idea: Mathematical Concept
The limitation includes executing a random number generator algorithm and receiving an output of a random number. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Further, the step of modifying a lattice can be performed by a human using pencil and paper, such as by selecting a particular node or beam and adding or removing the node or beam from a drawing of a lattice. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection II.
Abstract idea: Mathematical Concept
A computational simulation is comprised of one or more functions that are mathematically executed based on given input to generate output. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Establishing a position of a node can be performed by a human using pencil and paper. For example, a human can review an image of a test lattice, determine a location and direction for mechanical stimulus, and select one or more nodes as the input and output nodes. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection II.
Abstract idea: Mathematical Concept
The limitation includes performing a calculation, which is a mathematical concept, to determine a value. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Accepting or rejecting a test lattice can be performed by a human and involves observation, evaluation, opinion, and judgment. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection II.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Defining a model with a label can be performed by a human, such as by selecting a particular design and assigning an attribute to the design. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection II.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
The step of modifying a lattice can be performed by a human using pencil and paper, such as by selecting a particular node or beam and adding or removing the node or beam from a drawing of a lattice. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection II.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Defining an existing object can be performed by a human, such as by selecting a particular design and assigning an attribute to the design. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection II.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim is evaluated to determine whether any additional elements integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application and/or recite an improvement to a field of endeavor or technology. Claim 1 includes an additional element of a generic computing device, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Instead, the generic computer performing the judicial exception is mere instructions to apply the exception (executing by a recited processor). See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, the claim recites an additional element of “obtain a modified test lattice,” which is an extra-solution activity of data gathering, which courts have found does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
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. Courts have found that reciting generic computer components is not significantly more than the recited judicial exception. 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, courts have found mere data gathering to be an extra-solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. 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 defining a fourth group of support nodes, acting as a support for the mechanical actuator, and which are kept unchanged and in a fixed position during the steps of said iteration, and wherein a fourth group of removable nodes is constituted by nodes belonging neither to the first group, nor to the second group, nor to the third group. The limitation is a mental process that can be performed by a human. Defining nodes includes selecting a node and applying a label to the node based on its intended function. The process involves observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, which can be performed in the human mind. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection II. Accordingly, claim 2 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites wherein said step of defining an initial lattice model comprises: defining a model of a regular initial lattice, formed by a metamaterial and constituted by a repetition of regular basic geometric elements. The limitation is a mental process and defining a model with a label can be performed by a human, such as by selecting a particular design and assigning an attribute to the design. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection II. Accordingly, claim 3 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites wherein the basic regular geometric element which, by repeating, constitutes the regular initial lattice comprises a 2D triangular element or a 2D hexagonal element. The limitation further specifies the type of element that comprises the lattice that is defined as the model. The claim does not include additional elements beyond the judicial exceptions already recited in the claims. Accordingly, claim 4 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites wherein the basic regular geometric element which, by repeating, constitutes the regular initial lattice comprises a 3D cubic element with centered faces or a 3D cubic element with centered body. The limitation further specifies the type of element that comprises the lattice that is defined as the model. The claim does not include additional elements beyond the judicial exceptions already recited in the claims. Accordingly, claim 5 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites wherein: each of the input nodes of the first group of nodes is receives, as input mechanical stimulus (Mi), an external activation force (F) of the mechanical actuator, and to move towards a predetermined input stimulus direction defined by an input vector (tinp) when said external force F is applied; each of the output nodes of the second group of nodes moves, as output movement (Mo), towards a predetermined output movement direction defined by an output vector (tout) when the mechanical actuator is activated by the application of said external force (F). The limitations of the claim are an idea of a solution that tangential to the judicial exception and does not recite details of how the solution to a problem is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). The limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because there is no connection between the judicial exception and the claim. For example, the “configuration” of the nodes is not contingent on the simulation and/or on any other judicial exception present in claim 1. Thus, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Accordingly, claim 6 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites wherein the lattice comprises a plurality of first groups of nodes and a plurality of second groups of nodes, said first groups of nodes being associated with a respective plurality of input regions (R1n), and said second groups of nodes being associated with a respective plurality of output regions (R2m);- the input nodes of each of said input regions (R1n) receive, as respective input mechanical stimulus (Min), a respective external activation force (Fn), and to move towards a predetermined respective input stimulus direction defined by a respective input vector (tinp,n) when said external force (Fn) is applied; the output nodes of each of these output regions (R2m) move, as the respective output movement (Mom), towards a predetermined respective output movement direction defined by a respective output vector (tout,m) when the mechanical actuator is activated by the application of one or more of said external forces (Fn). The limitations of the claim are an idea of a solution that tangential to the judicial exception and does not recite details of how the solution to a problem is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). The limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because there is no connection between the judicial exception and the claim. For example, the “configuration” of the nodes is not contingent on the simulation and/or on any other judicial exception present in claim 1. Thus, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Accordingly, claim 7 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites wherein the step of modifying a current test lattice is performed based on a pseudo-random decision determined by a computational algorithm of the Monte-Carlo type. The claim merely specifies a type of algorithm to perform a step that is already identified as a mental process. With the addition of this limitation, the step of “modifying” can be identified as either a mental process (receiving a random instruction generated from a Monte Carlo algorithm, or as a mathematical concept that includes utilizing a computational algorithm to perform the “modifying.” In either instance, the claim includes limitations that are not additional elements and instead are further specifications for a judicial exception. According, claim 8 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites wherein the step of simulating the mechanical response of the test lattice is performed a simulation based on a discrete element model, DEM. A computational simulation is comprised of one or more functions that are mathematically executed based on given input to generate output. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I. Accordingly, claim 9 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites wherein the step of simulating the mechanical response of the test lattice is performed by a simulation based on a discrete element model, DEM, and the simulation based on a discrete element model, DEM, comprises performing a conjugate gradient relaxation corresponding to the minimization of the total energy function of the lattice. Accordingly, claim 10 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites wherein the calculated figure of merit, for each test lattice, comprises a structure efficiency, depending on said input stimulus direction (tinp) and output movement direction (tout) and on the movements of the input nodes (r; - ro) and of the output nodes (r; - ro0) with respect to the respective initial position, wherein r indicates a current position of the i-th input node after movement, rio indicates an initial position of the i-th input node, r; indicates a current position of the i-th input node after movement, rio indicates an initial position of the i-th input node. A computational simulation is comprised of one or more functions that are mathematically executed based on given input to generate output. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 12
Claim 12 recites wherein said structure efficiency (η) is calculated according to the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
70
187
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claim includes a mathematical formula to calculate a metric, which is a mathematical concept, which is a judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not an additional element apart from judicial exceptions recited in the claim and is instead a judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 13
Claim 13 recites wherein the calculated figure of merit, for each test lattice, comprises a directional efficiency (η d) defined as
PNG
media_image2.png
69
189
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein ri indicates a current position of the i-th input node after movement, rj0 indicates an initial position of the i-th input node, rj indicates a current position of the i-th input node after movement, rio indicates an initial position of the i-th input node, and wherein f is a weight function defined as
PNG
media_image3.png
52
262
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein y is the angle between a desired output direction tout and a measured direction.
The claim includes a mathematical formula to calculate a metric, which is a mathematical concept, which is a judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not an additional element apart from judicial exceptions recited in the claim and is instead a judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites wherein the calculated figure of merit, for each test lattice, comprises a force-based efficiency (η f) defined as:
PNG
media_image4.png
69
203
media_image4.png
Greyscale
where kext is an elastic spring constant and Fxi is a constant input force. The claim includes a mathematical formula to calculate a metric, which is a mathematical concept, which is a judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not an additional element apart from judicial exceptions recited in the claim and is instead a judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 15
Claim 15 recites wherein the step of accepting or rejecting the modified test lattice, or establishing a probability of acceptance of the modified test lattice, comprises:
defining a cost function Δ = exp(-n), and
Defining a function includes selecting an existing formula and/or deriving a formula applying a label to the node based on its intended function. The process involves observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, which can be performed in the human mind and thus is a mental process. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection II.
calculating a current cost function value (Δ0) of the current lattice and a test cost function value (Δtrailia) of the modified test lattice;
The limitation requires performing a calculation, which is a mathematical concept. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
applying the following acceptance or rejection criterion: if Δtrial<Δ0 the change is accepted; if Δtrialia>Δ0 the change is accepted with a probability P = exp[-(ΔtrialI-Δ°)/T].
Applying a criterion to a result is a mental process (that may additionally involve a mathematical concept) that includes reviewing a result and labeling the result as “accepted” or “rejected” according to the calculated result. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I and II.
Because the claim recites only judicial exceptions, claim 15 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 16
Claim 16 recites wherein the optimization criterion of the figure of merit, which determines the continuation or stopping of the iteration, is the optimization, or the maximization, of the figure of merit. The claim merely specifies a type of optimization criterion, which is a mental process that involves evaluation of potential criterion and selection of an appropriate criterion. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 17
Claim 17 recites wherein the metamaterial of which the lattice is composed comprises rubber and/or plastic and/or metal. The claim is an additional element of application of the judicial exception to a field of use. 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); 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 17 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 18
Claim 18 recites wherein the final structure of the lattice model, at the end of the iteration, is further tested by simulations of the FEM type. A computational simulation is comprised of one or more functions that are mathematically executed based on given input to generate output. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 19
Claim 19 recites wherein said steps of the method are performed by one or more simulation and/or optimization algorithms executed by a computer. A computational simulation is comprised of one or more functions that are mathematically executed based on given input to generate output. Further, the claim recites a generic computer, which is an additional element that is the equivalent of reciting a judicial exception and reciting “apply it.” See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I. See also 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). Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 20
Claim 20 recites A method for making a mechanical actuator by using metamaterials comprising the steps of:
performing a computer method for automated design of a mechanical actuator;
The claim recites generic computer component executing a method with substantially the same limitations as claim 1. 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).
manufacturing the mechanical actuator on the basis of the digital data corresponding to the final design model of the mechanical actuator, provided by said method for the automated design of a mechanical actuator wherein the computer-implemented method for automated design of a mechanical actuator comprises the steps of:
The claim includes an additional element of application of the judicial exception to a field of use. 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); 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 wherein the step of manufacturing comprises manufacturing the mechanical actuator by 3D printing techniques. The limitations of the claim are an idea of a solution that tangential to the judicial exception and does not recite details of how the solution to a problem is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). The limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because there is no connection between the judicial exception and the claim. Accordingly, claim 21 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 22
Claim 22 recites wherein the step of manufacturing comprises manufacturing the mechanical actuator by extrusion and/or pressing and/or carving techniques. The limitations of the claim are an idea of a solution that tangential to the judicial exception and does not recite details of how the solution to a problem is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). The limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because there is no connection between the judicial exception and the claim. Accordingly, claim 22 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 23
Claim 23 recites A method for making a metamaterial machine comprising mechanical actuators, comprising the steps of manufacturing one or more mechanical actuators according to claim 20; making the metamaterial machine by integrating said one or more mechanical actuators and other parts of the metamaterial machine. The limitations of the claim are an idea of a solution that tangential to the judicial exception and does not recite details of how the solution to a problem is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). The limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because there is no connection between the judicial exception and the claim. Accordingly, claim 23 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 1-3, 5-7, 11, 13-14, 16-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lu, et al., (“Topology and Dimensional Synthesis of Compliant Mechanisms Using Discrete Optimization,” hereinafter Lu) in view of Kumar, et al., (WIPO Pub. No. 2020/055595, hereinafter “Kumar”), and Musuvathy, et al., (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0190971, hereinafter “Musuvathy”).
Claim 1
Lu discloses:
A computer-implemented method for automated design
As opposed to the gradient-based synthesis approach, this GA-based approach simultaneously evolves a population of designs, thus resulting in a group of design alternatives for the designer to choose from. Lu at pg. 1089, col. 2, paragraph 2.
of a mechanical actuator
The compliant gripper design is also a commonly seen benchmarking problem that has been investigated in many previous literatures. The goal is to design a compliant mechanism that deforms to grip an object and has appropriate stiffness to bear the reaction forces upon gripping the object. Lu at pg. 1088, col. 1, paragraph 2.
defining, among the nodes of said [design]
Several paths are highlighted in the compliant gripper example in Fig. 2 to illustrate direct (path 1) and indirect (path 2 and 3) connections between the essential points; direct paths connect two essential points directly while indirect paths have intermediate connections with other paths. These paths are called the “load paths” in a structure. They can be seen as paths that transmit the loads between the input, ground supports, and output points. Lu at pg. 1082, col. 1, paragraph 3.
at least one second group of output nodes, which constitute a respective at least one output region (R2) intended to provide a respective at least one desired output mechanical movement (Mo), as a result of an action of the actuator;
Several paths are highlighted in the compliant gripper example in Fig. 2 to illustrate direct (path 1) and indirect (path 2 and 3) connections between the essential points; direct paths connect two essential points directly while indirect paths have intermediate connections with other paths. These paths are called the “load paths” in a structure. They can be seen as paths that transmit the loads between the input, ground supports, and output points. Lu at pg. 1082, col. 1, paragraph 3.
a third group of removable nodes, distinct from said nodes of the first group and of the second group;
The “intermediate connections” of Fig. 2 are nodes that are not input, output, nor ground points:
PNG
media_image5.png
196
301
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein the method further comprises the iteration of the following steps, carried out by an electronic processor: modifying a current test [design]
The GA started with 120 randomly generated designs and evolved for 50 generations. Lu at pg. 1088, col. 1, paragraph 3.
a pseudo-random decision determined by computational algorithm executed by said electronic processor,
A roulette wheel selection scheme is used in this research to simulate the natural selection process; a design with better performance, based on the objective function, has a higher probability to be selected for reproduction. Lu at pg. 1086, col. 2, paragraph 2.
to obtain a modified [design]
Through the reproduction process, different designs from one generation are selected to create offspring designs into the next generation that inherit features from their parent designs. Lu at pg. 1086, col. 2, paragraph 2.
wherein said step of modifying comprises at least one of removing a node belonging to the third group of removable nodes; adding a node belonging to the third group of removable nodes; removing a beam afferent to a node belonging to the third group of removable nodes; removing a beam afferent to a node belonging to the third group of removable nodes and
Based on the objective function, the optimization algorithm finds the optimal value for each design variable. When the material elasticity or cross section area is close to zero, the element has very little effect on the resulting structural deformation, and thus can be removed from the mesh in the final design interpretation. Lu at pg. 1080, col. 2-pg. 1081, col. 1, paragraph 1.
Each segment along the path is modeled as a beam element with cross-section dimension described by pDim for structural deformation calculation in FEA. When pTop is zero, the path is eliminated from the graph as well as from the finite element mesh. Lu at pg. 1086, col. 1, paragraph 2.
Said step of modifying also comprises accordingly reconfiguring the beams afferent to the removed or added node or to the nodes associated with the removed or added beams;
The removed elements create voids in the design domain and change the structural connectivity, resulting in the final topology. Lu at pg. 1081, col. 1, paragraph 1.
simulating, by computational simulation executed in said electronic processor, the mechanical response of the modified test lattice, when at least one input mechanical stimulus is applied to said input nodes of the at least one first group,
See Figure 13, illustrating a simulation of the compliant gripper in an inactive state (no external stimulus) and active state (with force applied at input points):
PNG
media_image6.png
361
645
media_image6.png
Greyscale
to determine the consequent at least one output mechanical movement of said output nodes of at least one second group, and to establish the position of the input and output nodes of the modified test lattice in presence of said at least one input mechanical stimulus;
The result shown in Fig. 11 was obtained within 1 min. As can be seen, the design can indeed achieve the desired gripping motion. Lu at pg. 1088, col. 1, paragraph 3.
PNG
media_image7.png
314
652
media_image7.png
Greyscale
calculating a figure of merit of the modified test lattice, on the basis of the positions, established by said simulation, of the input and output nodes, in presence of at least one mechanical input stimulus;
The selection scheme, crossover, and mutation strategies used in the load path synthesis approach are thus briefly summarized in Table 6. A roulette wheel selection scheme is used in this research to simulate the natural selection process; a design with better performance, based on the objective function, has a higher probability to be selected for reproduction. Equation (17) defines the probability of the design to be selected for reproduction. Elitism is also employed to ensure improvement from generation to generation; Lu at pg. 1086, col. 2, paragraph 2.
The “objective function” is analogous to a “figure of merit.”
either accepting or rejecting the modified test
This result shows overlapping elements such as those close to the left boundary in Fig. 11. If overlapping elements are undesirable in such an application, the designer can repeat the synthesis procedure by choosing a different location for the fixed points. Lu at pg. 1088, col. 1, paragraph 3-col. 2, paragraph 1.
defining the current test
Through the reproduction process, different designs from one generation are selected to create offspring designs into the next generation that inherit features from their parent designs. This process creates diversity within each generation, thus providing the evolution power in GA to improve designs. Lu at pg. 1086, col. 2, paragraph 2.
at the end of the iteration, considering the current test lattice determined by the last iteration as final design model of the mechanical actuator, and
The GA started with 150 randomly generated designs and evolved for 150 generations. The result shown in Fig. 8 was obtained within 3.5 min. Lu at 1087, col. 2, paragraph 2.
providing digital data corresponding to said final design model of the mechanical actuator for manufacturing the mechanical actuator by metamaterial.
The data structure also makes additional post-processing, if desired, very straightforward; the nodal locations, the structural connectivity, and beam element dimensions can be used directly for additional refinements, such as optimization for other purposes, nonlinear FEA for better deformation prediction, and interfacing with CAD programs for manufacturing. Lu at pg. 1088, col. 2, paragraph 2.
Lu does not appear to disclose:
formed by lattice-structured metamaterial, wherein the method comprises the steps of: defining a model of an initial lattice of said metamaterial and constituted by the repetition of basic geometric elements, either two-dimensional or three-dimensional, formed by a plurality of nodes connected by a plurality of beams;
wherein said iteration comprises at least one step in which a previously removed node is added again, and in which said iteration is repeated until a predefined criterion for optimizing the figure of merit is met;
Kumar, which is analogous art, discloses:
formed by lattice-structured metamaterial, wherein the method comprises the steps of: defining a model of an initial lattice of said metamaterial and constituted by the repetition of basic geometric elements,
Cellular lattice structures are an attractive class of materials that facilitate the construction of ultra-light solid body components. In addition to greatly reducing material usage and weight, cellular lattices have the advantage of being tunable because their shape is decoupled from their internal structure. Cellular lattice structures are generally designed according to a given set of material properties and defined according to a kernel, which is the fundamental unit of the lattice that defines its topological structure. Kumar at [0003].
either two-dimensional or three-dimensional, formed by a plurality of nodes connected by a plurality of beams;
In FIG. 4, an example of an HLL construct program 410 is shown for defining a design model for a lattice kernel and a lattice structure. The rendered visualization 400 illustrates an example of a screenshot for GUI 250, which includes the rendered kernel 401 and lattice structure 402. The lattice kernel definition 41 1 in construct program 410 includes space coordinates for node points 11 1 -118 and each of the node connections. To represent the model of the lattice structure from the defined kernel, morph definitions 412 are defined as nested translations, rotations and mutations for connecting each generated kernel to the next generated kernel in succession. The model lattice structure definition 413 is defined according to the lattice kernel definition 411 and the morph definitions 412. Kumar at [0025].
The manufacturability module 136 includes algorithms that solve queries about whether the current design is manufacturable for a given set of fabrication constraints. For example, given a fabrication limit for resolution of a 3D printer (i.e. , minimum thickness of a fabricated lattice beam), the manufacturability module 136 analyzes the geometry of the model lattice, without instantiating the entire lattice, and returns a result that indicates which areas of the lattice (e.g., by morph sequence) have features that are smaller than the resolution limit. Kumar at [0019].
Kumar is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to presenting a lattice of material utilizing computer design software. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine Lu and Kumar to result in s system that determines an optimal structure for a metamaterial lattice to generate a mechanical actuator. Motivation to combine includes an improved optimization method that can be applied to a lattice of metamaterials.
Musuvathy discloses:
wherein said iteration comprises at least one step in which a previously removed node is added again, and in which said iteration is repeated until a predefined criterion for optimizing the figure of merit is met;
Detailed embodiments allow a user to specify an initial lattice grid that can then grow and shrink appropriately to produce optimized lattice structures while preserving initial structure using improved level-set processes. Musuvathy at [0022].
Musuvathy is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to optimization of lattices of metamaterials. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine Musuvathy with the other references to result in a system that can optimize different structures of lattices. Motivation to combine includes increased reusability of the system to additional types of structures, thereby reducing additional development time and resources.
Claim 2
Lu discloses:
defining a fourth group of support nodes, acting as a support for the mechanical actuator, and which are kept unchanged and in a fixed position during the steps of said iteration, and wherein the third group of removable nodes is constituted by nodes belonging neither to the first group, nor to the second group, nor to the third group.
The load path representation is based on the connections between the essential points. Figure 3 illustrates the direct and indirect load paths in a structure. They can be categorized into three types: (1) paths connecting input and output, (2) paths connecting input and fixed points, and (3) paths connecting fixed points and output. They will be referred to as pathInOut, pathInFix, and pathFixOut, respectively. The structural topology can, therefore, be represented as a graph by expanding Fig. 3. Lu at pg. 1082, col. 2, paragraph 2.
See Fig. 3, illustrating a group of “fixed points” in addition to three other groups of nodes:
PNG
media_image8.png
131
249
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim 3
Kumar discloses:
wherein said step of defining an initial lattice model comprises: defining a model of a regular initial lattice, formed by a metamaterial and constituted by a repetition of regular basic geometric elements.
The modeling engine generates an original construct program that defines a lattice structure as a set of descriptive codes including an initial kernel, a starting point in space, and a series of transformations for a repetitive reproduction of the initial kernel into a virtual lattice structure. Kumar at [0005].
Claim 5
Musuvathy discloses:
wherein the basic regular geometric element which, by repeating, constitutes the regular initial lattice comprises a 3D cubic element with centered faces or a 3D cubic element with centered body.
See FIG. 4, illustrating a repeated cubic element:
PNG
media_image9.png
412
377
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim 6
Lu discloses:
wherein: each of the input nodes of the first group of nodes receives, as input mechanical stimulus (Mi), an external activation force (F) of the mechanical actuator, and to move towards a predetermined input stimulus direction defined by an input vector (tinp) when said external force F is applied; each of the output nodes of the second group of nodes moves, as output movement (Mo), towards a predetermined output movement direction defined by an output vector (tout) when the mechanical actuator is activated by the application of said external force (F).
The goal is to design a compliant mechanism that deforms to grip an object and has appropriate stiffness to bear the reaction forces upon gripping the object. In this example, the objective is to maximize MPE and the gripper is expected to work against an 8 N (1.8 lbf) external force. Figure 10 shows the design domain and boundary conditions, including the 2 mm input at 50,0, and two fixed points located at (0,20) and (0,40). The overall design domain is 100 mm by 80 mm (3.94 in. by 3.15 in.). The intermediate connection points are, therefore, only allowed to move within the upper-half region…The result shown in Fig. 11 was obtained within 1 min. As can be seen, the design can indeed achieve the desired gripping motion. This result shows overlapping elements such as those close to the left boundary in Fig. 11. Lu at pg. 1088, col. 1, paragraphs 2-3.
See also FIG. 4, illustrating the nodes (i.e., “points”) and paths between the nodes:
PNG
media_image8.png
131
249
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim 7
Lu discloses:
wherein the lattice comprises a plurality of first groups of nodes and a plurality of second groups of nodes, said first groups of nodes being associated with a respective plurality of input regions (R1n), and said second groups of nodes being associated with a respective plurality of output regions (R2m); the input nodes of each of said input regions (R1n) receive, as respective input mechanical stimulus (Min), a respective external activation force (Fn), and to move towards a predetermined respective input stimulus direction defined by a respective input vector (tinp,n) when said external force (Fn) is applied; the output nodes of each of these output regions (R2m) move, as the respective output movement (Mom), towards a predetermined respective output movement direction defined by a respective output vector (tout,m) when the mechanical actuator is activated by the application of one or more of said external forces (Fn).
The goal is to design a compliant mechanism that deforms to grip an object and has appropriate stiffness to bear the reaction forces upon gripping the object. In this example, the objective is to maximize MPE and the gripper is expected to work against an 8 N (1.8 lbf) external force. Lu at pg. 1088, col. 1, paragraphs 2.
PNG
media_image10.png
316
336
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The result shown in Fig. 8 was obtained within 3.5 min. It has two interconnect points located at 26.96, 67.29 and 119.5, 96.52, respectively. The pDim values bold italic in Fig. 8 are 5 mm 0.2 in for most segments, except for one section close to the fixed point at 60,0 and two thin sections along the output member. It has a geometric advantage of 24.7 as shown in Table 7. The full model of the displacement amplifier is shown in Fig. 9. This topology is very similar to the device described in another patented work 37,38 wherein the topology was obtained based on intuition. The result in Fig. 9 demonstrates that the load path approach can create topologies that confirm with design intuition. Lu at pg. 1087, col. 2, paragraph 2.
PNG
media_image11.png
300
666
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The illustrated movement diagrams for the produced actuators are analogous to vectors indicating movement of points when force is applied at particular nodes of the actuators.
Claim 11
Lu discloses:
wherein the calculated figure of merit, for each test lattice, comprises a structure efficiency, depending on said input stimulus direction (tinp) and output movement direction (tout) and on the movements of the input nodes (r; - ro) and of the output nodes (r; - ro0) with respect to the respective initial position, wherein r indicates a current position of the i-th input node after movement, rio indicates an initial position of the i-th input node, r; indicates a current position of the i-th input node after movement, rio indicates an initial position of the i-th input node.
The functional requirement of a SISO compliant mechanism is typically defined by a specified input and the desired output motion. The simplest objective can be defined by maximizing the output displacement along the desire direction mutual potential energy, MPE. Lu at pg. 1085, col. 2, paragraph 2.
Claim 13
Lu discloses:
wherein the calculated figure of merit1, for each test lattice, comprises a "directional efficiency" (η d) defined as
PNG
media_image2.png
69
189
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein ri indicates a current position of the i-th input node after movement, rj0 indicates an initial position of the i-th input node, rj indicates a current position of the i-th input node after movement, rio indicates an initial position of the i-th input node, and wherein f is a weight function defined as
PNG
media_image3.png
52
262
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the dimension of an element is constrained by the minimum manufacturable feature size, and the structural connectivity is constrained by the connectivity requirements Eqs. 1 and 2. Therefore, infinitely flexible designs no longer exist in the solution space. Hence, any of the formulations in Table 4 can be used as the objective function in the load path synthesis approach. Lu at pg. 1086, col. 1, paragraph 1.
See also Table 4.
Claim 14
Lu discloses:
wherein the calculated figure of merit, for each test lattice, comprises a force-based efficiency (rf) defined as:
PNG
media_image4.png
69
203
media_image4.png
Greyscale
where kext is an elastic spring constant and Fxi is a constant input force.
See Table 4 (“force-displacement efficiency displacement”).
Claim 16
wherein the optimization criterion of the figure of merit, which determines the continuation or stopping of the iteration, is the optimization, or the maximization, of the figure of merit.
The optimization problem formulation in the load path synthesis approach is, therefore, summarized in Table 5. Lu at pg. 1086, col. 1, paragraph 2.
Hence, any of the formulations in Table 4 can be used as the objective function in the load path synthesis approach. Lu at pg. 1086, col. 1, paragraph 1.
Claim 17
Lu discloses:
wherein the metamaterial of which the lattice is composed comprises rubber and/or plastic and/or metal.
The material is ABS plastic (Young’s modulus: 2480 MPa, yield strength: 35 MPa). Lu at 1087, col .2, paragraph 1.
Claim 19
Lu discloses:
wherein said steps of the method are performed by one or more simulation and/or optimization algorithms executed by a computer.
However, the focus of this paper is on the structural representation and the overall synthesis procedure; thus, we choose to use linear FEA in the research to reduce computation time. Lu at pg. 1084, col. 2, paragraph 1.
Claim 20
Lu discloses:
A method for making a mechanical actuator by using metamaterials comprising the steps of:
Two design examples, commonly seen in the compliant mechanisms literature, are included to illustrate the synthesis procedure and to benchmark the performance.
manufacturing the mechanical actuator on the basis of the digital data corresponding to the final design model of the mechanical actuator, provided by said method for the automated design of a mechanical actuator
The full model is shown in Fig. 13 and a prototype (ABS plastic) is shown in Fig. 14 to help visualize how the gripper works.
The claim further recites method steps that are substantially the same as the method steps recited in claim 1. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons and based on the same prior art as claim 1, the remainder of claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lu in view of Kumar and Musuvathy.
Claim 21
Kumar discloses:
wherein the step of manufacturing comprises manufacturing the mechanical actuator by 3D printing techniques.
The manufacturability module 136 includes algorithms that solve queries about whether the current design is manufacturable for a given set of fabrication constraints. For example, given a fabrication limit for resolution of a 3D printer (i.e. , minimum thickness of a fabricated lattice beam), the manufacturability module 136 analyzes the geometry of the model lattice, without instantiating the entire lattice, and returns a result that indicates which areas of the lattice (e.g., by morph sequence) have features that are smaller than the resolution limit. Kumar at [0019].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lu in view of Kumar, Musuvathy, and Wu, et al., (“Design and Optimization of Conforming Lattice Structures,” hereinafter “Wu”).
Claim 4
Wu discloses:
wherein the basic regular geometric element which, by repeating, constitutes the regular initial lattice comprises a 2D triangular element or a 2D hexagonal element.
The input includes a design domain and boundary conditions (Fig. 1 left and Fig. 2a), as well as design specifications such as the target fraction of solid material. The design domain in 3D is represented by a closed triangle surface mesh. This mesh is voxelized, generating finite elements for simulation and optimization. Wu at pg. 45, col. 2, paragraph 6.
Wu is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to optimizing lattice structures. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the shapes disclosed in Wu for the lattices utilized by Lu to result in a system that utilizes different shapes for lattices. Motivation to combine includes increased reusability of the system, thus allowing it to be adapted for additional structures.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lu in view of Kumar, Musuvathy, and Uzhumov, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,567,026, hereinafter “Uzhumov”).
Claim 8
Urzhumov discloses:
wherein the step of modifying a current test lattice is performed based on a pseudo-random decision determined by a computational algorithm of the Monte-Carlo type.
In addition, the optimal tuning vector, e.g. corresponding to an optimal configuration of a signal transduction system may be determined using a global optimization method involving a stochastic optimization method, a genetic optimization algorithm, a Monte-Carlo optimization method… Urzhumov at col. 18, lines 3-7.
Uzhumov is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to optimizing a configuration utilizing a Monte-Carlo method. Motivation to combine includes improved efficiency in optimizing lattice structures over methods disclosed in Lu (i.e., “roulette” style randomization).
Claims 9, 10, 12, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lu in view of Kumar, Musuvathy, and Ostoja-Starzewski, et al. (“Lattice models in micromechanics,” hereinafter “Ostoja”).
Claim 9
Lu, Kumar, and Musuvathy do not appear to disclose:
wherein the step of simulating the mechanical response of the test lattice is performed by a simulation based on a discrete element model, DEM.
Ostoja, which is analogous art to the claimed invention, discloses:
wherein the step of simulating the mechanical response of the test lattice is performed by means of a simulation based on a discrete element model, DEM.
Lattice (or spring network) models are based, in principle, on the atomic lattice models of materials. These models work best when the material may naturally be represented by a system of discrete units interacting via springs, or, more generally, rheological elements. It is not surprising that spatial trusses and frameworks have been the primary material systems thus modeled. In the case of granular media, the lattice methods are called discrete element models. Ostoja at pg. 35, col. 1, paragraph 1.
Ostoja is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to optimization of lattice materials. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill int the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Ostoja with the other references to result in an analysis and optimization system for metamaterial lattices utilizing DEM. Motivation to combine includes improved modeling capabilities and accuracy of the system by treating particular nodes as discrete points when performing the analysis, thereby improving the resulting structure.
Claim 10
Ostoja discloses:
wherein the step of simulating the mechanical response of the test lattice is performed by a simulation based on a discrete element model, DEM, and the simulation based on a discrete element model, DEM, comprises performing a conjugate gradient relaxation corresponding to the minimization of the total energy function of the lattice.
Lattice (or spring network) models are based, in principle, on the atomic lattice models of materials. These models work best when the material may naturally be represented by a system of discrete units interacting via springs, or, more generally, rheological elements. It is not surprising that spatial trusses and frameworks have been the primary material systems thus modeled. In the case of granular media, the lattice methods are called discrete element models. Ostoja at pg. 35, col. 1, paragraph 1.
The second one comes, just like the spring networks themselves, from the condensed matter physics. It is the so-called conjugate gradient method, which involves the energy of the system as a functional of all the relevant degrees of freedom x, and the gradient of this energy with respect to all these degrees. Once written in an explicit form as two subroutines, the program is connected with any of the widely available solvers. Note that F(x) is minimized when Eq. (3.8) equals zero, which is then equivalent to Eq. ~3.6!. Of course, one may also employ other algebraic solvers. Ostoja at pg. 43, col. 1, paragraph 1.
Claim 12
Lu discloses:
wherein said structure efficiency (η) is calculated according to the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
70
187
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The functional requirement of a SISO compliant mechanism is typically defined by a specified input and the desired output motion. The simplest objective can be defined by maximizing the output displacement along the desire direction mutual potential energy, MPE. Lu at pg. 1085, col. 2, paragraph 2.
Energy conversion efficiency (η) is the ratio between the useful output of an energy conversion machine and the input, in energy terms.2
Claim 15
Lu discloses:
wherein the step of accepting or rejecting the modified test lattice, or establishing a probability of acceptance of the modified test lattice, comprises: defining a cost function Δ = exp(-n), and calculating a current cost function value (Δ0) of the current lattice and a test cost function value (Δtrailia) of the modified test lattice; applying the following acceptance or rejection criterion: if Δtrial<Δ0 the change is accepted; if Δtrialia>Δ0 the change is accepted with a probability P = exp[-(ΔtrialI-Δ°)/T].
a design with better performance, based on the objective function, has a higher probability to be selected for reproduction. Equation 17 defines the probability of the kth design to be selected for reproduction. Lu at pg. 1086, col. 2, paragraph 2.
See also Table 6.
Claim 18
Ostoja discloses:
wherein the final structure of the lattice model, at the end of the iteration, is further tested by simulations of the FEM type.
By decreasing the spring network mesh size, an increasingly better accuracy can be achieved. Somewhat more accurate results may be obtained by a finite element model, albeit at a higher price of costly and cumbersome remeshing for each and every new disk configuration B(v) which is required in statistical studies. Ostoja at col. 2, paragraph 2.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lu in view of Kumar, Musuvathy, and Bandara, et al. (WIPO Pub. No 2017/186786, hereinafter “Bandara”).
Claim 22
Bandara discloses:
wherein the step of manufacturing comprises manufacturing the mechanical actuator by extrusion and/or pressing and/or carving techniques.
In any case, the 3D modeling program 116 can create an accurate representation of a combination of the 3D model component(s) 134 and the lattice 136, and provide a document 160 (of an appropriate format) to the manufacturing machine 170 to create a complete structure 180, including lattice structure 185. The manufacturing machine 170 can employ one or more additive manufacturing techniques, such as granular techniques (e.g., Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) and Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS)), extrusion techniques (e.g., Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM)), or subtractive or any other computer aided manufacturing methods. In addition, the user 190 can save or transmit the 3D model 132, with its lattice 136, for later use. For example, the 3D modeling program 116 can store the document 130 that includes the 3D model 132 and its lattice 136. Bandara at [0039].
Bandara is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are related to manufacturing a product that is generated via a computer analysis, simulation, and optimization system. 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 Bandara with the other references to print out the optimized structure utilizing extrusion and/or carving techniques. Motivation to combine includes allowing a user to manufacture the product utilizing various means, thus improving the versatility of the computer modelling system.
Claim 23
Bandara discloses:
A method for making a metamaterial machine comprising .
In any case, the 3D modeling program 116 can create an accurate representation of a combination of the 3D model component(s) 134 and the lattice 136, and provide a document 160 (of an appropriate format) to the manufacturing machine 170 to create a complete structure 180, including lattice structure 185. The manufacturing machine 170 can employ one or more additive manufacturing techniques, such as granular techniques (e.g., Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) and Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS)), extrusion techniques (e.g., Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM)), or subtractive or any other computer aided manufacturing methods. In addition, the user 190 can save or transmit the 3D model 132, with its lattice 136, for later use. For example, the 3D modeling program 116 can store the document 130 that includes the 3D model 132 and its lattice 136. Bandara at [0039].
Lu discloses:
mechanical actuators
The compliant gripper design is also a commonly seen benchmarking problem that has been investigated in many previous literatures. The goal is to design a compliant mechanism that deforms to grip an object and has appropriate stiffness to bear the reaction forces upon gripping the object. Lu at pg. 1088, col. 1, paragraph 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Saxena, A., “Topology design of large displacement compliant mechanisms with multiple materials and multiple output ports,” Struct Multidisc Optim 30, 477–490 (2005).
Tibbits, et al., (U.S. Patent No. 10,549,505)
Lee, et al., (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0005202).
Benjamin, et al., (U.S. Pat. No. 11,501,029).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 γ is not defined in the claims. Accordingly, the term is interpreted, based on the disclosure, as an angle between the intended output direction and the actual output direction.
2 See, e.g., Energy conversion efficiency, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_conversion_efficiency
Prosecution Insights