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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 are pending. Claims 1-6 have been examined and rejected.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations is/are: a fluid property acquiring unit, a drying time acquiring unit, a mesh division unit, an application amount calculation unit, a maximum film thickness calculation unit, a first moving amount calculation unit, a second moving amount calculation unit, a third moving amount calculation unit, and a fourth moving amount calculation unit in claims 1-6. These units according to paragraphs 0015-0016 on p. 7 are components of a generic CPU executing programs to perform functions.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 USC 101 for being directed to abstract ideas.
Claims 1 is a system claim and recites:
A simulator for simulating movement of a fluid discharged to a workpiece, the simulator comprising:
a fluid property acquiring unit that acquires a property of the fluid to be discharged; (insignificant extra-solution activity, data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g))
a drying time acquiring unit that acquires a time required for the fluid to be discharged to reach a predetermined degree of dryness; (insignificant extra-solution activity, data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g))
a mesh division unit that divides a surface of a CAD model of the workpiece into meshes; (math process of segmenting/dividing)
an application amount calculation unit that calculates an amount of a fluid applied to each mesh; (math concepts)
a maximum film thickness calculation unit that calculates, for each mesh, a maximum film thickness of the fluid that can be held in the mesh, from an inclination of the mesh with respect to a gravity direction and the property of the fluid; and (math concepts)
a first moving amount calculation unit that calculates, for each mesh, a first moving amount in a case where a film thickness of the applied fluid is larger than the maximum film thickness of the fluid that can be held in the mesh, the first moving amount being an amount which is determined by the property of the fluid and by which the fluid moves to a mesh located at a position lower than the mesh among meshes adjacent to the mesh. (math concepts)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: the claim recites units, which are components of a generic computer, which do not amount significantly more to abstract ideas.
Claims 2 is a system claim depending on claim 1 and recites:
The simulator according to claim 1, further comprising a second moving amount calculation unit that makes, for each mesh, a comparison between a film thickness of the fluid in the mesh and a film thickness of the fluid in a mesh adjacent to the mesh, and calculates a second moving amount by which a part of the fluid in one with a larger film thickness of the meshes subjected to the comparison to the other with a smaller film thickness. (math concepts)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: the claim recites units, which are components of a generic computer, which do not amount significantly more to abstract ideas.
Claims 3 is a system claim depending on claim 1 and recites:
The simulator according to claim 1, further comprising a third moving amount calculation unit that calculates, for an application zone of the fluid on the workpiece, a third moving amount by which the fluid moves between meshes constituting the application zone due to a passage of time. (math concepts)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: the claim recites units, which are components of a generic computer, which do not amount significantly more to abstract ideas.
Claims 4 is a system claim depending on claim 3 and recites:
The simulator according to claim 3, wherein the third moving amount calculation unit includes a swelling amount calculation unit that calculates a swelling amount by which the fluid swells at an end of the application zone on the workpiece as the fluid dries, and the third moving amount calculation unit calculates the third moving amount based on the swelling amount calculated by the swelling amount calculation unit. (math concepts)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements.
Claims 5 is a system claim depending on claim 3 and recites:
The simulator according to claim 3, wherein the third moving amount calculation unit includes a crack prediction unit that predicts a crack on a surface of the application zone caused by a concentration of the fluid in the application zone of the fluid on the workpiece, and the third moving amount calculation unit calculates the third moving amount based on the crack predicted by the crack prediction unit. (math concepts)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements.
Claims 6 is a system claim depending on claim 1 and recites:
The simulator according to claim 1, further comprising a fourth moving amount calculation unit that calculates, for each mesh, a fourth moving amount which is determined by the property of the fluid and by which the fluid moves from one mesh to another mesh adjacent to and located lower than the one mesh due to an inclination of the one mesh itself. (math concepts)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: the claim recites units, which are components of a generic computer, which do not amount significantly more to abstract ideas.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Kim et al. (Computational Fluid Dynamics Model For thickness and Uniformity Prediction of Coating Layer in Slot-Die Process, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2019, pp. 2991-2997): A three-dimensional computational fluid dynamics model to analyze the dynamics of ink at the outlet of a slot-die coater and wet coated layer thickness is presented in this paper. This model can be used to estimate the thickness deviation of the coated layer in the transverse direction, which cannot be obtained by using the conventional two-dimensional model. The internal geometry of the slot-die coater was statistically optimized by using the Box–Behnken design of experiment. The developed model is expected to be useful in obtaining the desired coating conditions and geometry of the slot-die coater without costly and time-consuming experiments.
Li et al. (Paint Deposition Simulation for Robotics Automotive Painting Line, 4th Annual IEEE International Conference on Cyber Technology in Automation, Control and Intelligent Systems, June 4-7, 2014, Hong Kong , China): This paper will present a paint deposition simulation method developed for the automotive painting line. The simulation work presented in this paper laid the foundation for the paint process optimization in the future. It achieved the first step by visualizing the simulation result to assist the paint robot programmer to tune the robot program and control parameters in the painting process for a multi-robot automotive painting line. Next step is to validate the simulated paint thickness distribution result to actual paint thickness distribution. Then an optimization method can be developed to automatically and systematically tune the painting process parameters and modify the robot path to improve both efficiency and quality of the painting line.
As per claim 1, Kim a simulator for simulating movement of a fluid discharged to a workpiece, the simulator comprising:
a fluid property acquiring unit that acquires a property of the fluid to be discharged; (Kim, p. 2992 right col. ¶ 2-4)
Li teaches:
a mesh division unit that divides a surface of a CAD model of the workpiece into meshes; (Li, p. 351 left col. ¶ 1-2)
an application amount calculation unit that calculates an amount of a fluid applied to each mesh; (Li, p. 352 left col. ¶ 2; calculating density of paint and thickness to each cell grid corresponding to applied amount of fluid applied to each mesh)
Kim, Li, and other cited prior arts either alone or in combination do not teach:
a drying time acquiring unit that acquires a time required for the fluid to be discharged to reach a predetermined degree of dryness;
a maximum film thickness calculation unit that calculates, for each mesh, a maximum film thickness of the fluid that can be held in the mesh, from an inclination of the mesh with respect to a gravity direction and the property of the fluid; and
a first moving amount calculation unit that calculates, for each mesh, a first moving amount in a case where a film thickness of the applied fluid is larger than the maximum film thickness of the fluid that can be held in the mesh, the first moving amount being an amount which is determined by the property of the fluid and by which the fluid moves to a mesh located at a position lower than the mesh among meshes adjacent to the mesh.
As per claim 2, Kim, Li, and other cited prior arts either alone or in combination do not teach the simulator according to claim 1, further comprising a second moving amount calculation unit that makes, for each mesh, a comparison between a film thickness of the fluid in the mesh and a film thickness of the fluid in a mesh adjacent to the mesh, and calculates a second moving amount by which a part of the fluid in one with a larger film thickness of the meshes subjected to the comparison to the other with a smaller film thickness.
As per claim 3, Kim, Li, and other cited prior arts either alone or in combination do not teach the simulator according to claim 1, further comprising a third moving amount calculation unit that calculates, for an application zone of the fluid on the workpiece, a third moving amount by which the fluid moves between meshes constituting the application zone due to a passage of time.
As per claim 4, Kim, Li, and other cited prior arts either alone or in combination do not teach the simulator according to claim 3, wherein the third moving amount calculation unit includes a swelling amount calculation unit that calculates a swelling amount by which the fluid swells at an end of the application zone on the workpiece as the fluid dries, and the third moving amount calculation unit calculates the third moving amount based on the swelling amount calculated by the swelling amount calculation unit.
As per claim 5, Kim, Li, and other cited prior arts either alone or in combination do not teach the simulator according to claim 3, wherein the third moving amount calculation unit includes a crack prediction unit that predicts a crack on a surface of the application zone caused by a concentration of the fluid in the application zone of the fluid on the workpiece, and the third moving amount calculation unit calculates the third moving amount based on the crack predicted by the crack prediction unit.
As per claim 6, Kim, Li, and other cited prior arts either alone or in combination do not teach the simulator according to claim 1, further comprising a fourth moving amount calculation unit that calculates, for each mesh, a fourth moving amount which is determined by the property of the fluid and by which the fluid moves from one mesh to another mesh adjacent to and located lower than the one mesh due to an inclination of the one mesh itself.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong Van Luu whose telephone number is 571-272-8572. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 8:30 to 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, Rehana Perveen, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3676, 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.
/CUONG V LUU/Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189