DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10, 12-19, and 21-22 are presented for examination.
This Office Action is in response to submission of documents on April 30, 2026.
Objection to the Specification is maintained on other grounds.
Objection to the Drawings is withdrawn in part.
Objection to claim 14 is withdrawn.
Interpretation of claims 1, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for including functional claim language.
Rejection claims 1, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the applicant regards as the invention.
Rejection of claims 1-10, 12-19, and 21-22 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Rejection of claims 1-5 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hilbert in view of Mohammedzadeh.
Rejection of claims 6-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hilbert in view of Mohammedzadeh and Kloppenborg.
Rejection of claims 12-19 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hilbert in view of Mohammedzadeh, Kloppenborg, and Vatanabe.
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
Objection to the Specification is withdrawn, but a new objection to the Abstract is asserted herein.
Objection to the Drawings is withdrawn in part and maintained in part. In light of the arguments and amendments to the Specification, Examiner acknowledges that the objections for labels 138, 156, 162, 174, and 180 are addressed and therefore objection to those labels are withdrawn. However, with regard to the amendments to the Specification addressing labels 112 and 126, Examiner is not persuaded. “The same part of an invention appearing in more than one view of the drawing must always be designated by the same reference character, and the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.” 37 C.F.R. 1.84(p)(4). Thus, unless each component labeled 112 is the identically same part, and each component labeled 126 is the same component, the Drawings are not in compliance with 37 C.F.R. 1.84. Proper correction is required.
Objection to the claims is withdrawn in light of the submitted amendments.
The claims have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Applicant asserts that amendments to the claims add structure to the “interface,” “geometry defining unit,” “parameter generating unit,” “simulation unit,” and “lead candidate geometry defining unit.” Examiner disagrees. Though structure is introduced by the amendments, it is still not clear what is included in the structure of each unit. As recited, the units (and interface) could be a hardware component or a software component, a separate computing system from each other, or separate components of the same computing system. Because the structure of the specific units are not disclosed in the Specification, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are maintained.
In light of amendments to claims 2, 6, and 8, rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn with the exception of those rejections related to the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, Examiner has considered the arguments and amendments but is not persuaded for the following reasons:
The inclusion of the limitation “a data storage…comprising a lookup table….” Is an additional element that is a mere recitation of generic computer components. The additional element does not claim an improvement in computer technology because the limitation does not address an improvement in the operation of the computer, such as a data structure or process for storing and/or retrieving data that improves how the computer operates (e.g., reduced computing time, improved memory usage).
The additional claim limitations that include a “processor” that performs the recited judicial exceptions is no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas using a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The argument regarding the claims being directed to a “specific iterative technical process” is unpersuasive because it does not address the rejections, which specify which particular portions of the claims are abstract ideas and which are additional elements that may integrate the claimed judicial exceptions into a practical application. The only additional elements in the claims are recitations of generic computer components and steps of providing data. Neither of these types of limitations integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or improve a technology, as analyzed in Step 2A, Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions, as analyzed at Step 2B.
Finally, Applicant argues that the claims recite a specific improvement in the designing absorbent and/or catalyst pellets. Examiner does not agree. The claims do not recite manufacturing an actual pellet (and even if so, such a limitation would likely be identified as an idea of a solution unless claimed with specificity) and further do not include limitations that recite an improvement or how the steps manifest a disclosed improvement.
Accordingly, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, Examiner is not persuaded by the arguments and amendments for the following reasons:
Regarding the argument that “neither Hilbert nor Mohammedzadeh teaches or suggests a pre-defined seed geometry stored in a data storage comprising a lookup table with a plurality of different seed geometries, where the seed geometry is selected based on the target criteria. Hilbert's ‘two possible blade shapes’ are not stored in a lookup table for automatic selection based on target criteria. Rather, they are simply two geometric configurations used in the optimization process,” Examiner is not persuaded. First, the claim does not require an “automatic selection” of the geometry, as asserted in the Response. Response at pg. 16. Instead, the claim language recites “selecting the seed geometry based on the at least one set of target criteria” without any additional limitations as to how the selection is performed. Further, Hilbert does teach the geometries being stored in files. See Hilbert at pg. 2572, col. 2-pg. 2573, col. 1. A file, which resides in a storage medium, is accessed via a file manager in order to find the location of the file in memory. Thus, the disclosure of Hilbert is analogous to the limitation of a lookup table of pre-defined geometries.
Further, Applicant argues that the limitation “wherein when simulating the shaped body the values of the set of parameters of the seed geometry are changed, wherein the changed values of parameters are then analyzed in order to determine whether or not for these changed parameters the shaped body fulfills the set of target criteria, wherein the varying of the values of the set of parameters is performed iteratively until the values of the set of parameters are such that the shaped body fulfills the set of target criteria at least within predetermined tolerances” is not taught nor disclosed by the references. However, Examiner is not persuaded because the amended language is nearly identical to the preceding limitation, which recites “comparing simulated criteria for these values with the set of target criteria, thereby generating at least one adapted set of parameters for which the target criteria are fulfilled at least within predetermined tolerances.” Thus, Hilbert discloses the limitation for at least the same reasons as the preceding limitation. See also Kloppenborg at pg. 86, paragraph 1.
Finally, Applicant asserts that “the data resulting from a claimed process, is specifically adapted for being used in chemical processes….” Response at pg. 16. However, such an intended use for the resulting design does not limit the claims and therefore is not given patentable weight when interpreting the claims. See MPEP 2111.02.
Accordingly, rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed April 30, 2026 complies with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2). Accordingly, the references are being considered by the Examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is a recitation of a claim and not a clear and concise narrative paragraph explaining the invention such that a reader would not be required to consult the specification to understand the invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
Reference character “112” has been used to designate all embodiments of the shaped body in all Figures.
Reference character “126” has been used to designate all embodiments of the shaped tool in all Figures.
Shaped body 112 is described with regards to Figures 1 to 6, but is not illustrated in the Figures until Figure 7. Thus, it is unclear which shaped body 112 is being described.
Shaped tool 126 is described with regards to Figures 1 to 6, but is not illustrated in the Figures until Figure 8. Thus, it is unclear which shaped tool 126 is being described.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
Claims 1, 21, and 22
interface
geometry defining unit
parameter generating unit
simulation unit
lead candidate geometry defining unit
Each of the limitations includes a non-structural nonce term (i.e., “interface” and “unit”).
For claim 1, the non-structural terms are recited as performing an action (“retrieving,” “defining,” etc.), which is equivalent to functional language (“configured to retrieve,” “configured to “define,” etc.).
For claims 21 and 22, each of the limitations is recited as “configured for,” which is functional language.
None of the limitations are recited with additional language indicating a specific structure for the components.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10, 12-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Because claims 21 and 22 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as reciting functional claiming language, the terms “interface,” “geometry defining unit,” “parameter generating unit,” “simulation unit,” and “lead candidate geometry defining unit” are not described in the Specification with sufficient structure.
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 1-10, 12-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear to what the “target criteria” is referring. As previously presented, the “target criteria” was interpreted to mean one or more requirements for the final shape of the product being optimized. However, in light of the current claims, as amended, the “target criteria” additionally or alternatively is a criteria for selecting an initial seed geometry (“selecting the seed geometry based on the at least one set of target criteria”). Accordingly, it is unclear how a particular set of criteria can be used both for initializing the optimization by identifying a starting geometry and also be the test for when the optimization is to conclude (“the changed values of parameters are then analyzed in order to determine whether or not for these changed parameters the shaped body fulfills the set of target criteria”). Proper correction and further clarification is required. For subsequent amendments, Applicant is encouraged to provide citations to the Specification as further evidence of support for the amendments.
Regarding both claims 1 and 21, the limitations of “wherein when simulating the shaped body the values of the set of parameters of the seed geometry are changed, wherein the changed values of parameters are then analyzed in order to determine whether or not for these changed parameters the shaped body fulfills the set of target criteria, wherein the varying of the values of the set of parameters is performed iteratively until the values of the set of parameters are such that the shaped body fulfills the set of target criteria at least within predetermined tolerances” is unclear because it appears to repeat limitations that are already present in the claims. Thus, it is unclear what is further limited by its addition. For example, “the values of the set of parameters of the seed geometry are changed” is a passive form of “varying values of the set of parameters,” which is already present in the preceding clause, also part of step d. Similarly, a design with “predetermined tolerances” is recited as the result of the iterations in both clauses. Accordingly, for the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted to have the same meaning as “simulating, by using at least one simulation unit, the shaped body by varying values of the set of parameters and by comparing simulated criteria for these values with the set of target criteria, thereby generating at least one adapted set of parameters for which the target criteria are fulfilled at least within predetermined tolerances, wherein the adapted set of parameters refers to an adapted set of values of parameters.”
Regarding claims 2 and 8, the phrase "such as" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 recites “the starting geometry” in steps ii-iv. However, it is unclear from the claim whether the “starting geometry” refers to the “starting geometry for the shaped body” or the “starting geometry for the shaping tool.”
Claim limitations “interface,” “geometry defining unit,” “parameter generating unit,” “simulation unit,” and “lead candidate geometry defining unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, claims 1, 21, and 22 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-10, 12-19, and 21-22 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 transmission, ideas of solutions, and recitation of 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 designing at least one shaped body, wherein the shaped body is one or more of a catalyst pellet and an adsorbent pellet, the method comprising:
a) retrieving, via at least one interface, at least one set of target criteria for the shaped body and providing the at least one set of target criteria to at least one processor of the computer on which the computer-implemented method is performed by using the at least one interface of the computer;
b) defining, by using at least one geometry defining unit, at least one seed geometry for the shaped body, wherein the seed geometry is a starting geometry for the shaped body,
wherein the seed geometry is a pre-defined seed geometry stored in a data storage of the computer comprising a lookup table comprising a plurality of different seed geometries and selecting the seed geometry based on the at least one set of target criteria, wherein
step b) comprises a sub-step of providing the seed geometry to at least one processor of the computer on which the computer- implemented method is performed;
c) generating, by using at least one parameter generating unit, a set of parameters comprising at least one geometry parameter of the seed geometry, wherein
step c) comprises a sub-step of providing the set of parameters to at least one processor of the computer on which the computer-implemented method is performed;
d) simulating, by using at least one simulation unit, the shaped body by varying values of the set of parameters and by comparing simulated criteria for these values with the set of target criteria, thereby generating at least one adapted set of parameters for which the target criteria are fulfilled at least within predetermined tolerances, wherein the adapted set of parameters refers to an adapted set of values of parameters wherein when simulating the shaped body the values of the set of parameters of the seed geometry are changed, wherein the changed values of parameters are then analyzed in order to determine whether or not for these changed parameters the shaped body fulfills the set of target criteria, wherein the varying of the values of the set of parameters is performed iteratively until the values of the set of parameters are such that the shaped body fulfills the set of target criteria at least within predetermined tolerances; and
e) determining, by using at least one lead candidate geometry defining unit, at least one lead candidate geometry of the at least one shaped body from the adapted set of parameters, wherein the lead candidate geometry is the resulting geometry for the shaped body, and
wherein the at least one lead candidate geometry of the shaped body is output via the at least one interface.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Defining a geometry is a mental process that can be performed by a human using pencil and paper and/or using a generic computer as an aid. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III. For example, a human can select, utilizing a computer aided design program, an initial geometry for a body from a library of possible designs.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Generating parameters can be performed by a human and can include, for example, selecting parameter values that match a seed geometry chosen by the human. Generating the parameters can be performed using, for example, a CAD program or other design program. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Calculations
Performing a simulation and/or an optimization are mathematical concepts that include utilizing one or more functions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Determining a geometry is a mental process that can be performed by a human using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim 1 limitations recite (bolded for additional element identification):
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2
A computer-implemented method for designing at least one shaped body, wherein the shaped body is one or more of a catalyst pellet and an adsorbent pellet, the method comprising:
a) retrieving, via at least one interface, at least one set of target criteria for the shaped body and providing the at least one set of target criteria to at least one processor of the computer on which the computer-implemented method is performed by using the at least one interface of the computer;
b) defining, by using at least one geometry defining unit, at least one seed geometry for the shaped body, wherein the seed geometry is a starting geometry for the shaped body,
wherein the seed geometry is a pre-defined seed geometry stored in a data storage of the computer comprising a lookup table comprising a plurality of different seed geometries and selecting the seed geometry based on the at least one set of target criteria wherein
step b) comprises a sub-step of providing the seed geometry to at least one processor of the computer on which the computer- implemented method is performed;
c) generating, by using at least one parameter generating unit, a set of parameters comprising at least one geometry parameter of the seed geometry, wherein
step c) comprises a sub-step of providing the set of parameters to at least one processor of the computer on which the computer-implemented method is performed;
d) simulating, by using at least one simulation unit, the shaped body by varying values of the set of parameters and by comparing simulated criteria for these values with the set of target criteria, thereby generating at least one adapted set of parameters for which the target criteria are fulfilled at least within predetermined tolerances, wherein the adapted set of parameters refers to an adapted set of values of parameters wherein when simulating the shaped body the values of the set of parameters of the seed geometry are changed, wherein the changed values of parameters are then analyzed in order to determine whether or not for these changed parameters the shaped body fulfills the set of target criteria, wherein the varying of the values of the set of parameters is performed iteratively until the values of the set of parameters are such that the shaped body fulfills the set of target criteria at least within predetermined tolerances; and
e) determining, by using at least one lead candidate geometry defining unit, at least one lead candidate geometry of the at least one shaped body from the adapted set of parameters, wherein the lead candidate geometry is the resulting geometry for the shaped body, and
wherein the at least one lead candidate geometry of the shaped body is output via the at least one interface.
Reciting generic computer components is the additional element of instructions to apply the recited judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f), Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The limitation is directed to the extra-solution activity of data gathering and data transmission. The limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the claim and thus is minimally or tangentially related to the invention. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The limitation recites a generic computer component that performs a judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f), Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The limitation recites a generic computer component that stores data, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f), Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
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).
The limitation recites a generic computer component that performs a judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitation is directed to the extra-solution activity of data gathering. The limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the claim and thus is minimally or tangentially related to the invention. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The limitation recites a generic computer component that performs a judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitation recites a generic computer component that performs a judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Providing data (i.e., outputting 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. The additional elements include sending and receiving data and generic computer components, all of which courts have found do not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. 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). 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). See also 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 wherein the target criteria contain at least one constraint selected from the group consisting of: a geometry constraint, a weight constraint; a surface area constraint; a density constraint; a mechanical strength constraint; a pressure drop constraint; a heat transport constraint; a mass transport constraint; a productivity constraint; a shaping process constraint. The claim merely further specifies a type of constraint and does not recite additional elements other than those recited in the independent claim. Accordingly, claim 2 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites wherein at least one of the target criteria of the set of target criteria comprises at least one condition to be fulfilled by the shaped body. The claim merely further specifies a type of constraint and does not recite additional elements other than those recited in the independent claim. Accordingly, claim 3 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites wherein the target criteria comprise at least one suitability of the shaped body for at least one predetermined application purpose. The claim merely further specifies a type of constraint and does not recite additional elements other than those recited in the independent claim. Accordingly, claim 4 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites wherein the adapted set of parameters in step d) is generated by applying at least one operation selected from the group consisting of: a non-linear algorithm; a stochastic algorithm; a genetic algorithm; an artificial intelligence algorithm; a gradient-based algorithm; a multi-criteria optimization function; sequential quadratic programming; method of feasible directions; quasi-newton method; newton method. The claim recites mathematical concepts that are utilized in performing the generating step. Thus, the generating step is specified as a mathematical concept (as opposed to the more general mental process step that was identified for claim 1). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I. Accordingly, claim 5 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 6
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 6
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1
a computer-implemented designing of at least one shaping tool for manufacturing the shaped body, the computer-implemented method for designing the at least one shaping tool comprising:
i) retrieving, by using at least one interface, at least one set of shaping target criteria for the shaping tool;
ii) defining, by using at least one geometry defining unit, at least one starting geometry of the shaping tool, wherein at least one negative geometry of the at least one lead candidate geometry determined in step e) is used as the starting geometry;
iii) generating, by using at least one shaping parameter generating unit, a set of shaping parameters comprising at least one shape geometry parameter of the starting geometry;
iv) simulating, by using at least one simulation unit, a shaping process using the shaping tool by varying values of the set of shaping parameters and by comparing simulated shaping properties for these values with the set of shaping target criteria, thereby generating at least one shaping geometry with an adapted set of shaping parameters for which the shaping target criteria are fulfilled at least within predetermined tolerances; and
v) determining, by using at least one shaping tool geometry defining unit, at least one geometry of the at least one shaping tool from the adapted set of shaping parameters.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Defining a geometry is a mental process that can be performed by a human using pencil and paper and/or using a generic computer as an aid. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III. For example, a human can select, utilizing a computer aided design program, an initial geometry for a body from a library of possible designs.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Generating parameters can be performed by a human and can include, for example, selecting parameter values that match a seed geometry chosen by the human. Generating the parameters can be performed using, for example, a CAD program or other design program. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Calculations
Performing a simulation and/or an optimization are mathematical concepts that include utilizing one or more functions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Determining a geometry is a mental process that can be performed by a human using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim 1 limitations recite (bolded for additional element identification):
Claim 6
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2
a computer-implemented designing of at least one shaping tool for manufacturing the shaped body, the computer-implemented method for designing the at least one shaping tool comprising:
i) retrieving, by using at least one interface, at least one set of shaping target criteria for the shaping tool;
ii) defining, by using at least one geometry defining unit, at least one starting geometry for the shaping tool, wherein at least one negative geometry of the at least one lead candidate geometry determined in step e) is used as the starting geometry;
iii) generating, by using at least one shaping parameter generating unit, a set of shaping parameters comprising at least one shape geometry parameter of the starting geometry;
iv) simulating, by using at least one simulation unit, a shaping process using the shaping tool by varying values of the set of shaping parameters and by comparing simulated shaping properties for these values with the set of shaping target criteria, thereby generating at least one shaping geometry with an adapted set of shaping parameters for which the shaping target criteria are fulfilled at least within predetermined tolerances; and
v) determining, by using at least one shaping tool geometry defining unit, at least one geometry of the at least one shaping tool from the adapted set of shaping parameters.
Reciting generic computer components is the additional element of instructions to apply the recited judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f), Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The limitation is directed to the extra-solution activity of data gathering. The limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the claim and thus is minimally or tangentially related to the invention. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The limitation recites a generic computer component that performs a judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f), Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The limitation recites a generic computer component that performs a judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitation recites a generic computer component that performs a judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitation recites a generic computer component that performs a judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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. Reciting generic computer components is the additional element of instructions to apply the recited judicial exception, which courts have found does not amount to 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).
Accordingly, claim 6 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites wherein the shaping target criteria comprise at least one suitability of the shaping tool for shaping the at least one shaped body, specifically the shaped body with the lead candidate geometry determined in step e). The claim merely further specifies a type of constraint and does not recite additional elements other than those recited in the independent claim. Accordingly, claim 7 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites wherein the shaping target criteria contain at least one constraint selected from the group consisting of: a surface property constraint; a geometry constraint; a pressure constraint; a shear force constraint; a compaction force constraint; an ejection force constraint; a productivity constraint; a force distribution constraint; a velocity distribution constraint; a mechanical stability constraint; a strength constraint; a pore size constraint; a weight constraint; an attrition performance constraint; a production machine constraint; a production constraint. The claim merely further specifies a type of constraint and does not recite additional elements other than those recited in the independent claim. According, claim 8 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites wherein at least one of the shaping target criteria of the set of shaping target criteria comprises at least one condition to be fulfilled by the shaping tool. The claim merely further specifies a type of criterion and does not recite additional elements other than those recited in the independent claim. Accordingly, claim 9 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites wherein the adapted set of parameters in step iv) is generated by applying at least one operation selected from the group consisting of a non-linear algorithm; a stochastic algorithm; a genetic algorithm; an artificial intelligence algorithm; a gradient-based algorithm; a multi-criteria optimization function; sequential quadratic programming; method of feasible directions; quasi-newton method; newton method. The claim recites mathematical concepts that are utilized in performing the generating step. Thus, the generating step is specified as a mathematical concept (as opposed to the more general mental process step that was identified for claim 1). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I. Accordingly, claim 10 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 12
Claim 12 recites a process for the production of a shaped body having a lead candidate geometry designed according to the computer-implemented method for designing at least one shaped body according to claim 1. The claim inherits all limitations recited in claim 1 and does not include any additional steps and/or elements. Accordingly, claim 12 is directed to unpatentable subject matter for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 13
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 13
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1
A computer-implemented method for designing a manufacturing process for manufacturing at least one shaped body, the method comprising:
I) designing the shaped body by using the method according to claim 1 referring to a method for designing at least one shaped body, thereby determining at least one lead candidate geometry of the shaped body; and
II) designing at least one shaping tool for manufacturing the shaped body by using a computer-implemented method for designing at least one shaping tool, the computer-implemented method for designing the at least one shaping tool comprising:
i) retrieving at least one set of shaping target criteria for the shaping tool;
ii) defining at least one starting geometry for the shaping tool, wherein at least one negative geometry of the at least one lead candidate geometry determined in step I) is used as the starting geometry;
iii) generating a set of shaping parameters comprising at least one shape geometry parameter of the starting geometry;
iv) simulating a shaping process using the shaping tool by varying values of the set of shaping parameters and by comparing simulated shaping properties for these values with the set of shaping target criteria, thereby generating at least one shaping geometry with an adapted set of shaping parameters for which the shaping target criteria are fulfilled at least within predetermined tolerances; and
v) determining at least one geometry of the at least one shaping tool from the adapted set of shaping parameters;
III) prototyping the at least one shaping tool from at least one geometry of the shaping tool designed in step II), wherein at least one process is used, wherein the process is selected from the group consisting of: a rapid prototyping process, comprising an additive manufacturing process; a conventional prototyping process, e.g. a subtractive prototyping process; a spark erosion process.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Designing a body using a method that is directed to unpatentable subject matter is a mental process that can be performed by a human. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Designing a tool using a method that is directed to unpatentable subject matter is a mental process that can be performed by a human. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Defining a geometry is a mental process that can be performed by a human using pencil and paper and/or using a generic computer as an aid. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III. For example, a human can select, utilizing a computer aided design program, an initial geometry for a body from a library of possible designs.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Generating parameters can be performed by a human and can include, for example, selecting parameter values that match a seed geometry chosen by the human. Generating the parameters can be performed using, for example, a CAD program or other design program. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Calculations
Performing a simulation and/or an optimization are mathematical concepts that include utilizing one or more functions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Determining a geometry is a mental process that can be performed by a human using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim 1 limitations recite (bolded for additional element identification):
Claim 13
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2
A computer-implemented method for designing a manufacturing process for manufacturing at least one shaped body, the method comprising:
I) designing the shaped body by using the method according to claim 1 referring to a method for designing at least one shaped body, thereby determining at least one lead candidate geometry of the shaped body; and
II) designing at least one shaping tool for manufacturing the shaped body by using a computer-implemented method for designing at least one shaping tool, the computer-implemented method for designing the at least one shaping tool comprising:
i) retrieving at least one set of shaping target criteria for the shaping tool;
ii) defining at least one starting geometry for the shaping tool, wherein at least one negative geometry of the at least one lead candidate geometry determined in step I) is used as the starting geometry;
iii) generating a set of shaping parameters comprising at least one shape geometry parameter of the starting geometry;
iv) simulating a shaping process using the shaping tool by varying values of the set of shaping parameters and by comparing simulated shaping properties for these values with the set of shaping target criteria, thereby generating at least one shaping geometry with an adapted set of shaping parameters for which the shaping target criteria are fulfilled at least within predetermined tolerances; and
v) determining at least one geometry of the at least one shaping tool from the adapted set of shaping parameters;
III) prototyping the at least one shaping tool from at least one geometry of the shaping tool designed in step II), wherein at least one process is used, wherein the process is selected from the group consisting of: a rapid prototyping process, comprising an additive manufacturing process; a conventional prototyping process, e.g. a subtractive prototyping process; a spark erosion process.
Reciting generic computer components is the additional element of instructions to apply the recited judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f), Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The limitation is directed to the extra-solution activity of data gathering. The limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the claim and thus is minimally or tangentially related to the invention. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Prototyping a shaping tool using a judicial exception (mental process and/or mathematical concepts) is an idea of a solution that is not recited with specificity such that it integrates the judicial exception into a practical application and/or improves a technology. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B, the inquiry is whether any of the additional elements (i.e., the elements that are not the judicial exception) amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The claim includes additional elements of sending and receiving data, which courts have found does not amount to significantly more. 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). Further, the additional elements include an idea of a solution, which courts have found does not amount to significantly more. 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).
Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites wherein the shaping target criteria comprise at least one suitability of the shaping tool for shaping at least one predetermined object, wherein the predetermined object is the shaped body designed by using the method according to any one of the preceding claims referring to a method for designing at least one shaped body. The claim merely further specifies a type of criterion and does not recite additional elements other than those recited in the independent claim. Accordingly, claim 14 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 15
Claim 15 recites wherein the shaping target criteria contain at least one constraint selected from the group consisting of: a surface property constraint; a geometry constraint; a pressure constraint; a shear force constraint; a compaction force constraint; an ejection force constraint; a productivity constraint; a force distribution constraint; a velocity distribution constraint; a mechanical stability constraint; a strength constraint, such as a tensile strength constraint; a pore size constraint; a weight constraint; an attrition performance constraint; a production machine constraint; a production constraint. The claim merely further specifies a type of constraint and does not recite additional elements other than those recited in the independent claim. Accordingly, claim 15 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 16
Claim 16 recites wherein at least one of the shaping target criteria of the set of shaping target criteria comprises at least one condition to be fulfilled by the shaping tool. The claim merely further specifies a type of criterion and does not recite additional elements other than those recited in the independent claim. Accordingly, claim 16 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 17
Claim 17 recites wherein the adapted set of parameters in step iv) is generated by applying at least one operation selected from the group consisting of a non-linear algorithm; a stochastic algorithm; a genetic algorithm; an artificial intelligence algorithm; a gradient-based algorithm; a multi-criteria optimization function; sequential quadratic programming; method of feasible directions; quasi-newton method; newton method. The claim recites mathematical concepts that are utilized in performing the generating step. Thus, the generating step is specified as a mathematical concept (as opposed to the more general mental process step that was identified for claim 1). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I. Accordingly, claim 17 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 18
Claim 18 recites wherein the method of step II) further comprises:
vi) prototyping the at least one shaping tool from the at least one geometry of the shaping tool determined in step v); and
Prototyping a shaping tool using a judicial exception (mental process and/or mathematical concepts) is an idea of a solution that is not recited with specificity such that it integrates the judicial exception into a practical application and/or improves a technology. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
vii) validating the prototyped shaping tool by comparing at least one property of the prototyped shaping tool with at least one property of a simulated shaping tool.
Validating an object and/or process is a mental process that can be performed by a human and requires observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Accordingly, claim 18 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 19
Claim 19 recites wherein the method further comprises:
IV) manufacturing the at least one shaped body from the prototyped shaping tool; and
Manufacturing a body using a process that is unpatentable subject matter is an idea of a solution that is not recited with specificity such that it integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application and/or improves a technology. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
V) experimentally validating one or more of the shaped body and the shaping tool.
Validating an object and/or process is a mental process that can be performed by a human and requires observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Accordingly, claim 19 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 21
Step 1: The claim is directed to a system, 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 21
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1
A designing system for designing at least one shaped body, wherein the shaped body is one or more of a catalyst pellet and an adsorbent pellet, the designing system comprising:
A. at least one interface configured for retrieving at least one set of target criteria for the shaped body and for providing the at least one set of target criteria to at least one processor,
wherein further at least one lead candidate geometry for the shaped body is outputted via the at least one interface;
B. at least one geometry defining unit configured for defining at least one seed geometry for the shaped body, wherein the seed geometry is a starting geometry for the shaped body
wherein the seed geometry is a pre-defined seed geometry stored in a data storage;
C. at least one parameter generating unit configured for generating a set of parameters comprising at least one geometry parameter of the seed geometry, wherein the at least one geometry parameter of the seed geometry is a parameter relating to a shape of the seed geometry;
D. at least one simulation unit configured for simulating the shaped body by varying values of the set of parameters and by comparing simulated criteria for these values with the set of target criteria, thereby generating at least one adapted set of parameters for which the target criteria are fulfilled at least within predetermined tolerances, and wherein the adapted set of parameters refers to an adapted set of values of parameters,
wherein when simulating the shaped body the values of the set of parameters of the seed geometry are changed,
wherein the changed values of parameters are then analyzed in order to determine whether or not for these changed parameters the shaped body fulfills the set of target criteria,
wherein the varying of the values of the set of parameters is performed iteratively until the values of the set of parameters are such that the shaped body fulfills the set of target criteria at least within pre- determined tolerances; and
E. at least one lead candidate geometry defining unit configured for determining at least one lead candidate geometry of the at least one shaped body from the adapted set of parameters, wherein the lead candidate geometry is the resulting geometry for the shaped body.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Defining a geometry is a mental process that can be performed by a human using pencil and paper and/or using a generic computer as an aid. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III. For example, a human can select, utilizing a computer aided design program, an initial geometry for a body from a library of possible designs.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Generating parameters can be performed by a human and can include, for example, selecting parameter values that match a seed geometry chosen by the human. Generating the parameters can be performed using, for example, a CAD program or other design program. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Calculations
Performing a simulation and/or an optimization are mathematical concepts that include utilizing one or more functions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Determining a geometry is a mental process that can be performed by a human using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Changing a value is a mental process that can be performed by a human using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and further can be performed using pencil and paper. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Performing analysis is a mental process that can be performed by a human using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and further can be performed using pencil and paper. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Repeating a process until the result is satisfactory may be performed by a human using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and further can be performed in the human mind. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim 1 limitations recite (bolded for additional element identification):
Claim 21
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2
A designing system for designing at least one shaped body, wherein the shaped body is one or more of a catalyst pellet and an adsorbent pellet, the designing system comprising:
A. at least one interface configured for retrieving at least one set of target criteria for the shaped body;
wherein further at least one lead candidate geometry for the shaped body is outputted via the at least one interface;
B. at least one geometry defining unit configured for defining at least one seed geometry for the shaped body, wherein the seed geometry is a starting geometry for the shaped body;
wherein the seed geometry is a pre-defined seed geometry stored in a data storage;
C. at least one parameter generating unit configured for generating a set of parameters comprising at least one geometry parameter of the seed geometry, wherein the at least one geometry parameter of the seed geometry is a parameter relating to a shape of the seed geometry;
D. at least one simulation unit configured for simulating the shaped body by varying values of the set of parameters and by comparing simulated criteria for these values with the set of target criteria, thereby generating at least one adapted set of parameters for which the target criteria are fulfilled at least within predetermined tolerances, wherein simulating the shaped body is an optimization process and wherein the adapted set of parameters refers to an adapted set of values of parameters; and
wherein when simulating the shaped body the values of the set of parameters of the seed geometry are changed,
wherein the changed values of parameters are then analyzed in order to determine whether or not for these changed parameters the shaped body fulfills the set of target criteria,
wherein the varying of the values of the set of parameters is performed iteratively until the values of the set of parameters are such that the shaped body fulfills the set of target criteria at least within pre- determined tolerances; and
E. at least one lead candidate geometry defining unit configured for determining at least one lead candidate geometry of the at least one shaped body from the adapted set of parameters, wherein the lead candidate geometry is the resulting geometry for the shaped body.
Reciting generic computer components is the additional element of instructions to apply the recited judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f), Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The limitation is directed to the extra-solution activity of data gathering. The limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the claim and thus is minimally or tangentially related to the invention. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Providing data (i.e., outputting 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).
The limitation recites a generic computer component that performs a judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f), Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The limitation recites a generic computer component that performs a judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitation recites a generic computer component that performs a judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitation recites a generic computer component that performs a judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitation recites a generic computer component that performs a judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B, the inquiry is whether any of the additional elements (i.e., the elements that are not the judicial exception) amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The claim includes additional elements of sending and receiving data, which courts have found does not amount to significantly more. 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 21 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 22
Step 1: The claim is directed to a system, 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 22
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1
A manufacture-designing system for designing a manufacturing process for manufacturing at least one shaped body, the manufacture-designing system comprising the designing system according to claim 21 and at least one shaping tool designing system for designing at least one shaping tool, the shaping tool designing system comprising:
u. at least one interface configured for retrieving at least one set of shaping target criteria for the shaping tool;
v. at least one geometry defining unit configured for defining at least one starting geometry for the shaping tool;
w. at least one shaping parameter generating unit configured for generating a set of shaping parameters comprising at least one shape geometry parameter of the starting geometry;
x. at least one simulation unit configured for simulating a shaping process using the shaping tool by varying values of the set of shaping parameters and by comparing simulated shaping properties for these values with the set of shaping target criteria, thereby generating at least one adapted set of shaping parameters for which the shaping target criteria are fulfilled at least within predetermined tolerances; and
y. at least one shaping tool geometry defining unit configured for determining at least one geometry of the at least one shaping tool from the adapted set of shaping parameters.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Defining a geometry is a mental process that can be performed by a human using pencil and paper and/or using a generic computer as an aid. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III. For example, a human can select, utilizing a computer aided design program, an initial geometry for a body from a library of possible designs.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Generating parameters can be performed by a human and can include, for example, selecting parameter values that match a seed geometry chosen by the human. Generating the parameters can be performed using, for example, a CAD program or other design program. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Calculations
Performing a simulation and/or an optimization are mathematical concepts that include utilizing one or more functions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Determining a geometry is a mental process that can be performed by a human using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim 1 limitations recite (bolded for additional element identification):
Claim 22
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2
A manufacture-designing system for designing a manufacturing process for manufacturing at least one shaped body, the manufacture-designing system comprising the designing system according to claim 21 and at least one shaping tool designing system for designing at least one shaping tool, the shaping tool designing system comprising:
u. at least one interface configured for retrieving at least one set of shaping target criteria for the shaping tool;
v. at least one geometry defining unit configured for defining at least one starting geometry for the shaping tool;
w. at least one shaping parameter generating unit configured for generating a set of shaping parameters comprising at least one shape geometry parameter of the starting geometry;
x. at least one simulation unit configured for simulating a shaping process using the shaping tool by varying values of the set of shaping parameters and by comparing simulated shaping properties for these values with the set of shaping target criteria, thereby generating at least one adapted set of shaping parameters for which the shaping target criteria are fulfilled at least within predetermined tolerances; and
y. at least one shaping tool geometry defining unit configured for determining at least one geometry of the at least one shaping tool from the adapted set of shaping parameters.
Reciting generic computer components is the additional element of instructions to apply the recited judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f), Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The limitation is directed to the extra-solution activity of data gathering. The limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the claim and thus is minimally or tangentially related to the invention. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The limitation recites a generic computer component that performs a judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f), Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The limitation recites a generic computer component that performs a judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitation recites a generic computer component that performs a judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitation recites a generic computer component that performs a judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B, the inquiry is whether any of the additional elements (i.e., the elements that are not the judicial exception) amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The claim includes additional elements of sending and receiving data, which courts have found does not amount to significantly more. 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 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 1-5 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hilbert, et al., (“Multi-objective shape optimization of a heat exchanger using parallel genetic algorithms,” hereinafter “Hilbert”) in view Mohammedzadeh, et al., (“Catalyst Shape as a Design Parameter—Optimum Shape for Methane-Steam Reforming Catalyst,” hereinafter “Mohammedzadeh”).
Claim 1
Hilbert discloses:
A computer-implemented method for designing at least one shaped body,
Designing optimal shapes for practical engineering applications has been the subject of numerous publications during the last decade [1–4]. Many methods can be found in the literature for optimization problems, based on different strategies, most of the time developed for a specific class of models. In this project, we consider specifically multi-objective optimization problems, since it covers many interesting application fields. As a matter of fact, most of the time, engineers responsible for the design of industrial devices have to face problems with more than one objective to fulfill at the same time. Moreover, the objectives of the optimization process are often concurrent (a simple example being the quality/price trade-off). Hilbert at pg. 2567, col. 1, paragraph 1.
a) retrieving, by using at least one interface, at least one set of target criteria for the shaped body,
The optimization problem consists of finding the best geometry of the blades to increase heat exchange while at the same time to limit the pressure loss. The two corresponding numerical parameters to optimize are the average temperature difference DT and pressure difference DP. Hilbert at pg. 2568, col. 2, paragraph 4.
and providing the at least one set of target criteria to at least one processor of the computer on which the computer-implemented method is performed by using the at least one interface of the computer
For the different simulations, the boundary and inlet conditions are the same, only the computational geometries differ. The outer dimensions of the computational domain as well as the blade positions along the domain boundaries are fixed and only the shape of the blades inside the computational region is varied. The forms of all four blades are always changed simultaneously, so that they are identical in every individual computation. Their geometrical shape is prescribed using four parameters… Hilbert at pg. 2569, col. 1.
The four parameters are analogous to search criteria in that, based on the parameters, a mesh (i.e., initial seed geometry) can be identified.
b) defining, by using at least one geometry defining unit, at least one seed geometry for the shaped body, wherein the seed geometry is a starting geometry for the shaped body,
Two possible blade shapes are shown in Fig. 6. The points (x1,min,ymin) and (x2,max,ymin) are always fixed. The geometrical constraints are prescribed in terms of lower and upper limits on the parameters presented in Fig. 6. Hilbert at pg. 2572, col. 2, paragraph 1.
The “two possible blade shapes” are interpreted as “seed geometry.”
wherein the seed geometry is a pre-defined seed geometry stored in a data storage of the computer comprising a lookup table comprising a plurality of different seed geometries and selecting the seed geometry based on the at least one set of target criteria, wherein
After having defined the geometry, the mesh is produced in an automatic manner using the commercial software Gambit 2.1. This is easily done by modifying the journal file containing the important geometrical parameters as variables. Knowing (x1, y1), (x2, y2) is sufficient to fully define the geometry and therefore to generate the mesh in an automatic manner and export it to fluent. Hilbert at pg. 2572, col. 2.
step b) comprises a sub-step of providing the seed geometry to at least one processor of the computer on which the computer- implemented method is performed;
OPAL is an object-oriented C++ code for Unix/ Linux systems, using a Tcl-script interpreter and optionally a Tk-based graphical user interface. A Tcl-script is used for coupling OPAL with other computer codes, and is used in our case to call a C interfacing program responsible for the evaluation of the objective functions. Hilbert at pg. 2572, col. 1, paragraph 4.
c) generating, by using at least one parameter generating unit, a set of parameters comprising at least one geometry parameter of the seed geometry, wherein
Their geometrical shape is prescribed using four parameters, as presented in Section 4.2.1. Since all other properties and boundary conditions are constant, these four parameters are the only input parameters of the optimization algorithm. Hilbert at pg. 2569, col. 1, paragraph 4-col. 2, paragraph 1.
step c) comprises a sub-step of providing the set of parameters to at least one processor of the computer on which the computer-implemented method is performed;
OPAL is an object-oriented C++ code for Unix/ Linux systems, using a Tcl-script interpreter and optionally a Tk-based graphical user interface. A Tcl-script is used for coupling OPAL with other computer codes, and is used in our case to call a C interfacing program responsible for the evaluation of the objective functions. Hilbert at pg. 2572, col. 1, paragraph 4.
d) simulating, by using at least one simulation unit, the shaped body by varying values of the set of parameters and by comparing simulated criteria for these values with the set of target criteria, thereby generating at least one adapted set of parameters for which the target criteria are fulfilled at least within predetermined tolerances, wherein the adapted set of parameters refers to an adapted set of values of parameters;
In the present case, this evaluation relies on the commercial software Gambit [33] for geometry and mesh generation, and Fluent [26] for solving the flow and energy equations. Therefore, the evaluation of an individual set of parameters requires four steps: (1) the generation of the profile contour (blades) from the design variables; (2) the generation of an appropriate mesh for the obtained geometry; (3) the CFD simulation, i.e. the solution of the governing coupled equations for the flow variable and the energy on the mesh generated in the previous step; (4) the post-processing of the obtained results to extract the values of the objective functions for these specific design variables. Hilbert at pg. 2572, col. 1, paragraph 5.
wherein when simulating the shaped body the values of the set of parameters of the seed geometry are changed, wherein the changed values of parameters are then analyzed in order to determine whether or not for these changed parameters the shaped body fulfills the set of target criteria, wherein the varying of the values of the set of parameters is performed iteratively until the values of the set of parameters are such that the shaped body fulfills the set of target criteria at least within predetermined tolerances; and
In the present case, this evaluation relies on the commercial software Gambit [33] for geometry and mesh generation, and Fluent [26] for solving the flow and energy equations. Therefore, the evaluation of an individual set of parameters requires four steps: (1) the generation of the profile contour (blades) from the design variables; (2) the generation of an appropriate mesh for the obtained geometry; (3) the CFD simulation, i.e. the solution of the governing coupled equations for the flow variable and the energy on the mesh generated in the previous step; (4) the post-processing of the obtained results to extract the values of the objective functions for these specific design variables. Hilbert at pg. 2572, col. 1, paragraph 5.
e) determining, by using at least one lead candidate geometry defining unit, at least one lead candidate geometry of the at least one shaped body from the adapted set of parameters, wherein the lead candidate geometry is the resulting geometry for the shaped body, and
After convergence, the temperature difference between the inlet (uniform constant value) and the averaged value along the outlet is computed. The pressure difference between the inlet and outlet averaged pressure values is also computed. These two differences are the two objectives of the optimization problem. The resulting temperature and pressure fields of one of the optimum solutions are presented as an example in Figs. 7 and 8. Hilbert at pg. 2573, col. 2, paragraph 4.
The “optimal solution” is analogous to a “lead candidate geometry.”
wherein the at least one lead candidate geometry of the shaped body is output via the at least one interface.
Six different optimal blade profiles obtained by the optimization procedure are presented in Fig. 12. Hilbert at pg. 2574, col. 2.
Hilbert does not appear to disclose:
wherein the shaped body is one or more of a catalyst pellet and an adsorbent pellet
Mohammedzadeh, which is analogous art, discloses:
In the steam-reforming reaction, transport resistances have a large effect on the catalyst performance, leading to effectiveness factors much less than unity. Since only a thin layer of the catalyst is involved in the reaction, only the exposed surface of the catalyst pellet plays an important role in its effectiveness. Catalysts with desired mechanical and hydrodynamic characteristics and high exposed surface area are desirable for this reaction. To compare the different shapes of catalyst pellet, a reference spherical shape has been considered. A number of catalyst particle shapes with the following properties have been considered: ease of manufacturing with conventional techniques; good mechanical strength; high external surface area. For comparison, in addition to the reference sphere, a cylinder, a single channel cylinder (ring), a multi-channel cylinder and a multi-channel cube have also been considered (refer to Figure 7). Mohammedzadeh at pg. 386, col. 2, paragraphs 3-4.
Mohammedzadeh is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to determining a catalyst shape that optimizes a reaction. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine Hilbert and Mohammedzadeh to optimize the shape of a pellet for a chemical process in place of optimizing a heat exchanger using the process detailed in Hilbert. Motivation to combine includes allowing for additional shapes for the catalyst pellet besides the selected shapes of Mohammedzadeh that would allow for a better optimization of the chemical process. Thus, a candidate shape could be selected that is different than the shapes tested in Mohammedzadeh in a fully automated manner, as indicated by Hilbert. See Hilbert at Abstract.
Claim 2
Mohammedzadeh discloses:
wherein the target criteria contain at least one constraint selected from the group consisting of: a geometry constraint; a weight constraint; a surface area constraint; a density constraint; a mechanical strength constraint; a pressure drop constraint; a heat transport constraint; a mass transport constraint; a productivity constraint; a shaping process constraint.
Catalysts with desired mechanical and hydrodynamic characteristics and high exposed surface area are desirable for this reaction. To compare the different shapes of catalyst pellet, a reference spherical shape has been considered. A number of catalyst particle shapes with the following properties have been considered: ease of manufacturing with conventional techniques; good mechanical strength; high external surface area. For comparison, in addition to the reference sphere, a cylinder, a single channel cylinder (ring), a multi-channel cylinder and a multi-channel cube have also been considered (refer to Figure 7). Mohammedzadeh at pg. 386, col. 2, paragraphs 3-4.
Claim 3
Hilbert discloses:
wherein at least one of the target criteria of the set of target criteria comprises at least one condition to be fulfilled by the shaped body.
After convergence, the temperature difference between the inlet (uniform constant value) and the averaged value along the outlet is computed. The pressure difference between the inlet and outlet averaged pressure values is also computed. These two differences are the two objectives of the optimization problem. The resulting temperature and pressure fields of one of the optimum solutions are presented as an example in Figs. 7 and 8. Hilbert at pg. 2573, col. 2, paragraph 4.
The difference of the “inlet and output averaged pressure values” is a criteria fulfilled by the shaped body.
Claim 4
Mohammedzadeh discloses:
wherein the target criteria comprise at least one suitability of the shaped body for at least one predetermined application purpose.
Reactor tubes are filled with nickel containing catalyst pellets. Ni-Al2O3 catalyst properties are dictated by severe operating conditions of high temperature and high steam partial pressure (close to 3000 kPa). In the reforming reaction, the catalyst should: (i) allow possible nearly full conversion of the hydrocarbon feed and a close approach to equilibrium for the methane steam reforming reaction at the reformer exit; (ii) maintain low tube wall temperature to ensure a long operation life; (iii) cause a low and constant pressure drop. To meet these requirements, the catalyst must have sufficient activity, resistance to carbon formation, mechanical strength and suitable shape . Catalyst activity, its resistance to coke formation and its mechanical properties depend mainly on the particular catalyst formulation and preparation method. Transport resistances limit the catalyst effectiveness factor to values much less than unity, so only a thin exposed layer of the catalyst pellet takes part in the reaction. Although, for a given formulation decreasing catalyst pellet size can increase the catalyst exposed area per unit reactor volume, the catalyst particle size cannot be reduced freely due to the excessive pressure drop. With a given formulation, pellet size and preparation method, catalyst pellet shape is an important factor in achieving maximum activity for minimum pressure drop. Mohammedzadeh at pg. 383, cols. 1-2.
Claim 5
Hilbert discloses:
wherein the adapted set of parameters in step d) is generated by applying at least one operation selected from the group consisting of: a non-linear algorithm; a stochastic algorithm; a genetic algorithm; an artificial intelligence algorithm; a gradient-based algorithm; a multi-criteria optimization function; sequential quadratic programming; method of feasible directions; quasi-newton method; newton method.
Classical optimization techniques, like gradient-based methods are known for their lack of robustness and for their tendency to fall into local optima. Generic and robust search methods, such as Genetic Algorithms (GA) [18,19], offer several attractive features and have been used widely for design shape optimization [20–24]. They can in particular be used for multi-objective multi-parameter problems. They have been successfully tested in many practical cases, for example for design shape optimization in aerodynamics [1,2,21–23], automotive industry [25]. Hilbert at pg. 2568, col. 1, paragraph 2.
Claim 21
Claim 21 recites a system that performs substantially the same steps as the method disclosed in claim 1. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons and based on the same prior art as the rejection of claim 1, claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hilbert in view of Mohammedzadeh.
Claims 6-10 are rejected as being obvious over Hilbert in view of Mohammedzadeh and further in view of Kloppenborg, et al. (“Optimization of the Die Topology in Extrusion Processes,” hereinafter “Kloppenborg”).
Claim 6
Hilbert and Mohammedzadeh do not appear to disclose:
a computer-implemented designing of at least one shaping tool for manufacturing the shaped body, the computer-implemented method for designing the at least one shaping tool comprising:
i) retrieving, by using at least one interface, at least one set of shaping target criteria for the shaping tool;
ii) defining, by using at least one geometry defining unit, at least one starting geometry for the shaping tool, wherein at least one negative geometry of the at least one lead candidate geometry determined in step e) is used as the starting geometry;
iii) generating, by using at least one shaping parameter generating unit, a set of shaping parameters comprising at least one shape geometry parameter of the starting geometry;
iv) simulating, by using at least one simulation unit, a shaping process using the shaping tool by varying values of the set of shaping parameters and by comparing simulated shaping properties for these values with the set of shaping target criteria, thereby generating at least one shaping geometry with an adapted set of shaping parameters for which the shaping target criteria are fulfilled at least within predetermined tolerances; and
v) determining, by using at least one shaping tool geometry defining unit, at least one geometry of the at least one shaping tool from the adapted set of shaping parameters.
Kloppenborg, which is analogous art to the claimed invention, discloses:
a computer-implemented designing of at least one shaping tool for manufacturing the shaped body, the computer-implemented method for designing the at least one shaping tool comprising:
This paper presents the results of investigations on topology optimizations in extrusion dies. Kloppenborg at pg. 81, Abstract.
An “extrusion die” is a “shaping tool.”
i) retrieving, by using at least one interface, at least one set of shaping target criteria for the shaping tool;
Two different optimization procedures are presented. In the first part of the paper dead zones in a flat and in a porthole die were improved by enhance the streamlining of the extrusion die. In the second part an evolutionary optimization algorithm has been used to optimize the extrusion die topology in order to reduce the difference between the strand exit velocities in a multi extrusion process. Kloppenborg at pg. 81, Abstract.
“Reduc[ing] the difference between the strand exit velocities in a multi extrusion process” is a “target criteria.”
ii) defining, by using at least one geometry defining unit, at least one starting geometry for the shaping tool, wherein at least one negative geometry of the at least one lead candidate geometry determined in step e) is used as the starting geometry;
The nodes on the left border of the models are assigned to the inflow velocity representing the stamp and the extrusion direction. The border nodes of the top side and bottom side of the strands as well as the nodes on the die wall are assigned with a velocity of zero normal to the extrusion direction. Thus, the nodes of the die front surface are assigned with a velocity of zero in the extrusion direction, representing the front surface. No pressure is assigned to the nodes on the outflow. In the second model the nodes around the barrier are assigned with a velocity of zero to avoid material flow through them, analogous to a porthole die. Kloppenborg at pg. 82.
See Figure 9, illustrating a seed geometry that includes negative geometry of the resulting extruded object.
PNG
media_image1.png
286
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
iii) generating, by using at least one shaping parameter generating unit, a set of shaping parameters comprising at least one shape geometry parameter of the starting geometry;
The design space is defined by the finite elements between the die orifice and the inflow of the material as shown in Fig. 2. The elements which are assigned to Material-1 and which are at the boundary of the die wall or in contact with Material-2 are defined as design variables for the next optimization run. The type of design variable is discrete; it can only be changed from Material-1 to Material-2. Kloppenborg at pg. 85, paragraph 4.
iv) simulating, by using at least one simulation unit, a shaping process using the shaping tool by varying values of the set of shaping parameters and by comparing simulated shaping properties for these values with the set of shaping target criteria, thereby generating at least one shaping geometry with an adapted set of shaping parameters for which the shaping target criteria are fulfilled at least within predetermined tolerances; and
Genetic algorithms are part of the evolutionary algorithms with the idea of implement a Darwin-Evolution-Model approach for process optimization. To achieve an equal exit velocity in both extrusion strands, the evolution operations mutation, recombination, and production have been used. For an individual of the start population, elements along the die wall of the multiextrusion process model are stochastically selected. For each selected element the immediate neighbor elements are selected additionally by a random number between 1 and 4 to produce noses along the die wall with different depths (Fig. 7) to change the material flow. All selected elements are assigned to Material-2. Kloppenborg at pg. 86, paragraph 1.
v) determining, by using at least one shaping tool geometry defining unit, at least one geometry of the at least one shaping tool from the adapted set of shaping parameters.
The evolutionary algorithm is not deterministic. Due to this, it is possible to find different results for the same starting conditions. To study this, seven optimizations were conducted. The number of generations in every optimization run is representative for the convergence of the algorithm. In average, 9 generations with 10 individuals each, were needed to optimize the strand exit velocities. The scatter in the needed generations is extremely high between 3 generations in the second run and 15 generations in the seventh run. To compare the different extrusion die topologies, the optimized geometries of the first four optimization runs are presented in Fig. 9. Kloppenborg at pg. 87, paragraph 1.
The “optimized geometries” are from “adapted set of shaping parameters.”
Kloppenborg is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to using an extrusion process to manufacture an object. 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 process described in Kloppenborg to design a shaping tool to manufacture the pellet disclosed in Hilbert and Mohammedzadeh. Motivation to do so includes minimizing time and expense in designing a tool by performing analysis before prototyping and manufacturing the tool. Thus, both the body and the tool, which are designed using similar methodologies, can be designed and simulated before the tool is manufactured, ensuring design criteria are met before adding the expense of prototyping and construction.
Claim 7
Kloppenborg discloses:
wherein the shaping target criteria comprise at least one suitability of the shaping tool for shaping the at least one shaped body, specifically the shaped body with the lead candidate geometry determined in step e).
In the second part an evolutionary optimization algorithm has been used to optimize the extrusion die topology in order to reduce the difference between the strand exit velocities in a multi extrusion process. Kloppenborg at Abstract.
Claim 8
Kloppenborg discloses:
wherein the shaping target criteria contain at least one constraint selected from the group consisting of: a surface property constraint; a geometry constraint; a pressure constraint; a shear force constraint; a compaction force constraint; an ejection force constraint; a productivity constraint; a force distribution constraint; a velocity distribution constraint; a mechanical stability constraint; a strength constraint; a pore size constraint; a weight constraint; an attrition performance constraint; a production machine constraint; a production constraint.
In a first calculation run a simplified extrusion model with a flat die was analyzed and than sequentially improved. The initial step was performed to identify the dead zones in the numerical model. As shown in Fig. 4, the dead zones occur in the upper and lower corner of the front surface. In optimization step 1 it can be seen that the material in the initial step shears along the corners at an angle of approximately 40°. The elements which have been changed from Material-1 to Material-2 are not considered further due to the low flow velocity. The angle increased in further steps due to the change in material flow conditions. The geometry of the die gets more streamlined during the improvement of the dead zones, but an ideal improved model without dead Advanced Materials Research Vol. 43 83 zones could not be achieved. Hence, the uneven line along the element edges, which were changed in material, implements local dead zones in the changed models. Kloppenborg at pp. 83-84.
Claim 9
Kloppenborg discloses:
wherein at least one of the shaping target criteria of the set of shaping target criteria comprises at least one condition to be fulfilled by the shaping tool.
The geometry of the die gets more streamlined during the improvement of the dead zones. Kloppenborg at pg. 83.
“Improving the dead zones” is a “shaping target criteria.”
Claim 10
Kloppenborg discloses:
wherein the adapted set of parameters in step iv) is generated by applying at least one operation selected from the group consisting of a non-linear algorithm; a stochastic algorithm; a genetic algorithm; an artificial intelligence algorithm; a gradient-based algorithm; a multi-criteria optimization function; sequential quadratic programming; method of feasible directions; quasi-newton method; newton method.
Genetic algorithms are part of the evolutionary algorithms with the idea of implement a Darwin-Evolution-Model approach for process optimization. To achieve an equal exit velocity in both extrusion strands, the evolution operations mutation, recombination, and production have been used. For an individual of the start population, elements along the die wall of the multiextrusion process model are stochastically selected. For each selected element the immediate neighbor elements are selected additionally by a random number between 1 and 4 to produce noses along the die wall with different depths (Fig. 7) to change the material flow. All selected elements are assigned to Material-2. Kloppenborg at pg. 86.
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 algorithms of Kloppenborg when determining an optimal value for parameters related to the shaping of a tool and/or a body produced by the tool because the algorithms disclosed in Kloppenborg improve efficiency of the design process by facilitating testing of a tool before the tool is manufactured to determine whether a product produced by the hypothetical tool performs as desired. Thus, one would be motivated to combine because the process, from design to testing, can be performed without the expense of manufacturing a prototype of a tool, testing it, and then redesigning it to meet required specifications if the tool does not perform as intended.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hilbert in view of Mohammedzadeh, and further in view of Vatanabe, et al., (“Topology optimization with manufacturing constraints: A unified projection-based approach,” hereinafter “Vatanabe”).
Claim 12
Hilbert and Mohammedzadeh do not appear to disclose:
a process for the production of a shaped body having a lead candidate geometry designed according to the computer-implemented method for designing at least one shaped body according to claim 1.
Vatanabe, which is analogous art to the claimed invention, discloses:
a process for the production of a shaped body having a lead candidate geometry designed according to the computer-implemented method for designing at least one shaped body according to claim 1.
There are several processes for manufacturing parts of structures and machines [17]. Each process has its own features and characteristics. Among the most well-known processes, we can mention: casting, forging, turning, milling, drilling, extrusion, forming, rolling, electrical discharge machining, laser-cutting, and others. For all these processes, internal holes should be avoided because it is not practical from an engineering point of view. Vatanabe at pg. 100, col. 1, paragraph 4.
Vatanabe is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to producing a body using a shaping tool. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the process described in Vatanabe to produce the body described in Hilbert and Mohammedzadeh using the tool designed as disclosed in Kloppenborg. Motivation to combine includes combining known methods to yield predictable results because, as previously indicated, design of a shaped body and shaping tool using simulations and optimization are known in the prior art, and subsequently prototyping the shaping tool to manufacture the shaped body is disclosed by Vatanabe. Thus, prototyping the shaped body would yield the predictable results of a tool to manufacture the shaped body.
Claims 13-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hilbert in view of Mohammedzadeh, Kloppenborg, and further in view of Vatanabe, et al., (“Topology optimization with manufacturing constraints: A unified projection-based approach,” hereinafter “Vatanabe”).
Claim 13
Hilbert and Mohammedzadeh disclose:
A computer-implemented method for designing a manufacturing process for manufacturing at least one shaped body, the method comprising:
I) designing the shaped body by using the method according to claim 1 referring to a method for designing at least one shaped body, thereby determining at least one lead candidate geometry of the shaped body; and
The limitation includes all of the limitations recited in claim 1 and therefore is disclosed and/or suggested by at least the same prior art.
Kloppenborg discloses:
II) designing at least one shaping tool for manufacturing the shaped body by using a computer-implemented method for designing at least one shaping tool, the computer-implemented method for designing the at least one shaping tool comprising:
This paper presents the results of investigations on topology optimizations in extrusion dies. Kloppenborg at pg. 81, Abstract.
i) retrieving at least one set of shaping target criteria for the shaping tool;
Two different optimization procedures are presented. In the first part of the paper dead zones in a flat and in a porthole die were improved by enhance the streamlining of the extrusion die. In the second part an evolutionary optimization algorithm has been used to optimize the extrusion die topology in order to reduce the difference between the strand exit velocities in a multi extrusion process. Kloppenborg at pg. 81, Abstract.
ii) defining at least one starting geometry for the shaping tool, wherein at least one negative geometry of the at least one lead candidate geometry determined in step I) is used as the starting geometry;
The nodes on the left border of the models are assigned to the inflow velocity representing the stamp and the extrusion direction. The border nodes of the top side and bottom side of the strands as well as the nodes on the die wall are assigned with a velocity of zero normal to the extrusion direction. Thus, the nodes of the die front surface are assigned with a velocity of zero in the extrusion direction, representing the front surface. No pressure is assigned to the nodes on the outflow. In the second model the nodes around the barrier are assigned with a velocity of zero to avoid material flow through them, analogous to a porthole die. Kloppenborg at pg. 82.
iii) generating a set of shaping parameters comprising at least one shape geometry parameter of the starting geometry;
The design space is defined by the finite elements between the die orifice and the inflow of the material as shown in Fig. 2. The elements which are assigned to Material-1 and which are at the boundary of the die wall or in contact with Material-2 are defined as design variables for the next optimization run. The type of design variable is discrete; it can only be changed from Material-1 to Material-2. Kloppenborg at pg. 85, paragraph 4.
iv) simulating a shaping process using the shaping tool by varying values of the set of shaping parameters and by comparing simulated shaping properties for these values with the set of shaping target criteria, thereby generating at least one shaping geometry with an adapted set of shaping parameters for which the shaping target criteria are fulfilled at least within predetermined tolerances; and
Genetic algorithms are part of the evolutionary algorithms with the idea of implement a Darwin-Evolution-Model approach for process optimization. To achieve an equal exit velocity in both extrusion strands, the evolution operations mutation, recombination, and production have been used. For an individual of the start population, elements along the die wall of the multiextrusion process model are stochastically selected. For each selected element the immediate neighbor elements are selected additionally by a random number between 1 and 4 to produce noses along the die wall with different depths (Fig. 7) to change the material flow. All selected elements are assigned to Material-2. Kloppenborg at pg. 86, paragraph 1.
v) determining at least one geometry of the at least one shaping tool from the adapted set of shaping parameters;
The evolutionary algorithm is not deterministic. Due to this, it is possible to find different results for the same starting conditions. To study this, seven optimizations were conducted. The number of generations in every optimization run is representative for the convergence of the algorithm. In average, 9 generations with 10 individuals each, were needed to optimize the strand exit velocities. The scatter in the needed generations is extremely high between 3 generations in the second run and 15 generations in the seventh run. To compare the different extrusion die topologies, the optimized geometries of the first four optimization runs are presented in Fig. 9. Kloppenborg at pg. 87, paragraph 1.
Vatanabe discloses:
III) prototyping the at least one shaping tool from at least one geometry of the shaping tool designed in step II), wherein at least one process is used, wherein the process is selected from the group consisting of: a rapid prototyping process, comprising an additive manufacturing process; a conventional prototyping process, e.g. a subtractive prototyping process; a spark erosion process.
Synthesis of structures by means of topology optimization may lead to complex shapes (Fig. 2) and, in general, are neither cost effective nor practical to manufacture. A common procedure consists of post-processing the result by interpolation functions and smoothening of curves/shapes [1]. Sometimes, in order to achieve a practical solution, the original design needs to be substantially modified, losing its optimized characteristics. This problem has motivated the topology optimization community to seek solutions tailored for specific manufacturing processes. These solutions are useful for both traditional and additive manufacturing processes; however, the focus of this paper lies on the latter. Vatanabe at pg. 98, paragraph 2.
Claim 14
Kloppenborg discloses:
wherein the shaping target criteria comprise at least one suitability of the shaping tool for shaping at least one predetermined object,
For handling reasons and for subsequent processing it can be necessary that the manufactured profiles of the multi-extrusion process have been extruded with the same length. The difference in profile length is the result of different strand exit speeds during the multi-extrusion process. The adjustment of the die orifice, the individual position to the container centerline, and the different profile cross sections have, for example, an influence on the material flow, which can induce a difference between the strand exit speeds. Thus, a temperature gradient in the die can have an effect on the flow stress and, thereby, on the material flow in the feeders. The problems occur not only in multi-extrusion processes, but also during the extrusion of complex hollow cross sections if the profile thickness is different along the profile center line [5, 9]; here, for example unwanted bending or torsion effects can occur. Kloppenborg at pg. 85, paragraph 2.
Hilbert and Mohammedzadeh discloses:
wherein the predetermined object is the shaped body designed by using the method according to any one of the preceding claims referring to a method for designing at least one shaped body.
The claim is interpreted as pertaining to the method disclosed in Claim 1 (see Objections to the Claims).
See the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 15
Kloppenborg discloses:
wherein the shaping target criteria contain at least one constraint selected from the group consisting of: a surface property constraint; a geometry constraint; a pressure constraint; a shear force constraint; a compaction force constraint; an ejection force constraint; a productivity constraint; a force distribution constraint; a velocity distribution constraint; a mechanical stability constraint; a strength constraint, such as a tensile strength constraint; a pore size constraint; a weight constraint; an attrition performance constraint; a production machine constraint; a production constraint.
In a first calculation run a simplified extrusion model with a flat die was analyzed and than sequentially improved. The initial step was performed to identify the dead zones in the numerical model. As shown in Fig. 4, the dead zones occur in the upper and lower corner of the front surface. In optimization step 1 it can be seen that the material in the initial step shears along the corners at an angle of approximately 40°. The elements which have been changed from Material-1 to Material-2 are not considered further due to the low flow velocity. The angle increased in further steps due to the change in material flow conditions. The geometry of the die gets more streamlined during the improvement of the dead zones, but an ideal improved model without dead Advanced Materials Research Vol. 43 83 zones could not be achieved. Hence, the uneven line along the element edges, which were changed in material, implements local dead zones in the changed models. Kloppenborg at pp. 83-84.
Claim 16
Kloppenborg discloses:
wherein at least one of the shaping target criteria of the set of shaping target criteria comprises at least one condition to be fulfilled by the shaping tool.
In the second part an evolutionary optimization algorithm has been used to optimize the extrusion die topology in order to reduce the difference between the strand exit velocities in a multi extrusion process. Kloppenborg at Abstract.
Claim 17
Hilbert and Mohammedzadeh do not appear to disclose:
wherein the adapted set of parameters in step iv) is generated by applying at least one operation selected from the group consisting of a non-linear algorithm; a stochastic algorithm; a genetic algorithm; an artificial intelligence algorithm; a gradient-based algorithm; a multi-criteria optimization function; sequential quadratic programming; method of feasible directions; quasi-newton method; newton method.
Kloppenborg discloses:
wherein the adapted set of parameters in step iv) is generated by applying at least one operation selected from the group consisting of a non-linear algorithm; a stochastic algorithm; a genetic algorithm; an artificial intelligence algorithm; a gradient-based algorithm; a multi-criteria optimization function; sequential quadratic programming; method of feasible directions; quasi-newton method; newton method.
Genetic algorithms are part of the evolutionary algorithms with the idea of implement a Darwin-Evolution-Model approach for process optimization. To achieve an equal exit velocity in both extrusion strands, the evolution operations mutation, recombination, and production have been used. For an individual of the start population, elements along the die wall of the multiextrusion process model are stochastically selected. For each selected element the immediate neighbor elements are selected additionally by a random number between 1 and 4 to produce noses along the die wall with different depths (Fig. 7) to change the material flow. All selected elements are assigned to Material-2. Kloppenborg at pg. 86, paragraph 1.
Claim 18
Hilbert and Mohammedzadeh do not appear to disclose:
wherein the method of step II) further comprises: vi) prototyping the at least one shaping tool from the at least one geometry of the shaping tool determined in step v); and
vii) validating the prototyped shaping tool by comparing at least one property of the prototyped shaping tool with at least one property of a simulated shaping tool.
Vatanabe discloses:
wherein the method of step II) further comprises: vi) prototyping the at least one shaping tool from the at least one geometry of the shaping tool determined in step v); and
Synthesis of structures by means of topology optimization may lead to complex shapes (Fig. 2) and, in general, are neither cost effective nor practical to manufacture. A common procedure consists of post-processing the result by interpolation functions and smoothening of curves/shapes [1]. Sometimes, in order to achieve a practical solution, the original design needs to be substantially modified, losing its optimized characteristics. This problem has motivated the topology optimization community to seek solutions tailored for specific manufacturing processes. These solutions are useful for both traditional and additive manufacturing processes; however, the focus of this paper lies on the latter. Vatanabe at pg. 98, paragraph 2.
Kloppenborg discloses:
vii) validating the prototyped shaping tool by comparing at least one property of the prototyped shaping tool with at least one property of a simulated shaping tool.
The shear angles of the manual improvement steps of the simplified finite element model are approximately concordant with experimental results of Hinkfort, as it can be seen in Fig. 5. Kloppenborg at pg. 84, paragraph 2.
Claim 19
Hilbert, Mohammedzadeh, and Kloppenborg do not appear to disclose:
wherein the method further comprises: IV) manufacturing the at least one shaped body from the prototyped shaping tool; and
V) experimentally validating one or more of the shaped body and the shaping tool.
Vatanabe discloses:
wherein the method further comprises: IV) manufacturing the at least one shaped body from the prototyped shaping tool; and
Synthesis of structures by means of topology optimization may lead to complex shapes (Fig. 2) and, in general, are neither cost effective nor practical to manufacture. A common procedure consists of post-processing the result by interpolation functions and smoothening of curves/shapes [1]. Sometimes, in order to achieve a practical solution, the original design needs to be substantially modified, losing its optimized characteristics. This problem has motivated the topology optimization community to seek solutions tailored for specific manufacturing processes. These solutions are useful for both traditional and additive manufacturing processes; however, the focus of this paper lies on the latter. Vatanabe at pg. 98, paragraph 2.
V) experimentally validating one or more of the shaped body and the shaping tool.
The shear angles of the manual improvement steps of the simplified finite element model are approximately concordant with experimental results of Hinkfort], as it can be seen in Fig. 5. Kloppenborg at pg. 84, paragraph 2.
Claim 22
Claim 22 recites a system that performs substantially the same steps as the method disclosed in claim 13. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons and based on the same prior art as the rejection of claim 13, claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hilbert in view of Mohammedzadeh, Kloppenborg, and Vatanabe.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Favier, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 9,524,359
Olhofer, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0214370
Choi, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 11,660,582
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
Prosecution Insights