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 .
This Office Action is in response to claims filed on 12/19/2025
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 3-5, 10-11, 13-15 and 20 were amended.
Drawings
Applicant’s arguments and replacement sheets, see remarks page 9, filed 12/19/2025, with respect to the drawings being objected has been fully considered and is persuasive. The objection of the drawings has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, “The Office indicated that the proposed amendment should overcome the 101 rejection but that further definition with regard to the practical application would help”. Examiner notes the current amendments provide mere instructions to apply an exception but it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see remarks pages 10-12, filed 12/19/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-13, 15 and 17-20 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant argues “Neither Bujny, Robitaille, nor any combination thereof, disclose many of these limitations and do not disclose the combination”. Applicant further argues “For example, neither reference disclose: the component data file defines thickness of the sheet metal component”. Examiner notes Bujny discloses material thickness and defines it to be 1mm, see Fig 5. Applicant further agues “determining, by the processor, a mass of each element of the plurality of elements based on the element data and the average thickness”. Examiner notes, Bujny discloses determining the total cost (mass) based on element data, U=270 MPa, and average thickness, 1mm. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by claim amendment is made in view of Womack et al. US 2022/0242486 A1, (hereafter Womack).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see remarks pages 10-12, filed 12/19/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 4, 6, 14 and 16 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner notes, claims 4, 6, 14 and 16 are dependent claims. Dependent claims from which it depends has a new grounds of rejection. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made having Womack et al. US 2022/0242486 A1, (hereafter Womack).
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.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A). Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite a mental process and a mathematical calculation; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 1:
Claims 1-10 are directed to the statutory category of processes.
Claim 1 Step 2A prong 1:
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. Abstract ideas are bolded.
A method, the method comprising:
providing a computer system for evaluating a sheet metal component, wherein the computer system includes:
an input device for user inputs to the computer system as to parameters associated with the sheet metal component and
a display for notifying the user of estimated values associated with the sheet metal component
estimating a mass of the sheet metal component, including by:
receiving, through the input device and by a processor of the computer system, a component data file that includes data that defines a geometry of the sheet metal component, wherein the component data file defines thickness of the sheet metal component;
projecting variations in thickness, wherein the thickness includes areas of thinning and thickening projected to be created by forming of the sheet metal component;
generating, by the processor, element data based on the component data file, wherein the element data defines a plurality of elements of the sheet metal component, wherein each element is a face that is polygonal in shape and that defines a part of the sheet metal component;
determining, using the element data, an average thickness of each element;
determining, by the processor, a mass of each element of the plurality of elements based on the element data and the average thickness;
determining, by the processor, a component mass based on a summation of the masses of the plurality of elements; and
generating, by the processor, component mass data for display or design based on the determined component mass;
displaying the determined component mass to the user;
using the determined component mass in evaluating performance of a product within which the sheet metal component is designed to be assembled; and
forming the component for use in the product, wherein an accurate weight of the product is established with reference to the determined component mass.
The limitations “evaluating a sheet metal component”, “estimating a mass of the sheet metal component”, “generating, by the processor, element data based on the component data file”, “determining, using the element data, an average thickness of each element”, “determining, by the processor, a mass of each element of the plurality of elements”, “determining, by the processor, a component mass”, “generating, by the processor, component mass data”, “evaluating performance of a product within which the sheet metal component is designed to be assembled” and “forming the component for use in the product” are an abstract ideas because it is directed to a mathematical model. The limitation, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed using mathematical equations” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Also, the limitation, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could, mentally or on paper, observe, evaluate or analyze to make the determination of a model and its output.
Claim 1 Step 2A prong 2:
Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present general field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
“A method, the method comprising: providing a computer system” (particular machine – see MPEP 2106.05(b))
“an input device for user inputs to the computer system as to parameters associated with the sheet metal component” (general field of use and data gathering – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h))
“a display for notifying the user of estimated values associated with the sheet metal component ”(general field of use and insignificant extra solution activity – see MPEP 2106.05(g) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h))
“receiving, through the input device and by a processor of the computer system, a component data file that includes data that defines a geometry of the sheet metal component, wherein the component data file defines thickness of the sheet metal component” (general field of use and data gathering – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h))
“projecting variations in thickness, wherein the thickness includes areas of thinning and thickening projected to be created by forming of the sheet metal component” (general field of use and insignificant extra solution activity – see MPEP 2106.05(g) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h))
“wherein the element data defines a plurality of elements of the sheet metal component, wherein each element is a face that is polygonal in shape and that defines a part of the sheet metal component” (general field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h))
“displaying the determined component mass to the user” (general field of use and insignificant extra solution activity – see MPEP 2106.05(g) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h))
“wherein an accurate weight of the product is established with reference to the determined component mass” (general field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h))
Claim 1 Step 2B:
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations considered directed towards field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP2106.05(g).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 1 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2 further recites: “wherein the element data for an element of the plurality of elements comprises node data for each node associated with the element and thickness data associated with each node.” These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the elements having nodes that are being determined (mental observation of determining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the plurality of elements correspond to faces, including the face, of a mesh file of the sheet metal component.” These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the elements that correspond (close similarity) to faces of a mesh file that are being determined (mental observation of determining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the faces comprise at least one of triangle defined by three nodes and a quadrilateral defined by four nodes.” This limitation is considered to be a field of use limitation, because it defines the type of data that is being considered. see MPEP 2106.05(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h). The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the elements that are being determined (mental observation of determining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 5 recites “further comprising determining an area of the element of the plurality of elements; wherein the determining the mass of each element is based on the area and the average thickness.” The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the area of the elements that are being determined (mental observation of determining or setting an equation to perform the determining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the determining the area is based on heron's formula” These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the formula used to determine the area (mental observation of segmenting with pen and paper) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the determining the mass of each element is based on a density of a material of the component”. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the properties required to determine the mass (mental observation of defining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 8 recites “further comprising receiving the density from user input.” This limitation is considered to be a field of use limitation, because it defines the type of input that are being considered. see MPEP 2106.05(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h).
These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible
Claim 9 recites “further comprising determining the density from the component data file.” The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the properties required to determine the density (mental observation of defining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 10 recites “further comprising determining a percent difference between a nominal mass of the sheet metal component and the determined component mass; wherein the component mass data includes the percent difference data; and comprising displaying, by the display, the percent difference data; and using the percent difference in evaluating the component, including for vehicle fuel economy performance.” The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the determining of the mass data (mental observation of defining or setting a set of equations to perform the determining ) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Step 1:
Claims 11-20 are directed to the statutory category of system.
Claim 11 Step 2A prong 1:
The claim language is substantially similar as claim 1, except for the following claim elements/limitations: A system, the system comprising: a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores element data that defines a plurality of elements of a sheet metal component; and a processor coupled to the non-transitory computer readable medium and configured to:
The claim does not include any additional abstract ideas from claim 1
Claim 11 Step 2A prong 2:
Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present general field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
“A system, the system comprising: a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores element data that defines a plurality of elements of a sheet metal component; and a processor coupled to the non-transitory computer readable medium and configured to:” (general field of use– see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h)) (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (common processor, MPEP § 2106.05(b))
Claim 11 Step 2B:
The additional limitations found in claim 11, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (system, computer readable medium and processor) and would function in its ordinary capacity for computing steps, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more. Step 2A Prong I and Step 2B.
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 11 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 12 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 2; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 13 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 3; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 14 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 4; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 15 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 5; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 16 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 6; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 17 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 7; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 18 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 8; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 19 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 9; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 20 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 10; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-13, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bujny et al., US 2023/0196290 A1, Filed: Dec. 21, 2021, (hereafter Bujny), in views of Womack et al. US 2022/0242486 A1, (hereafter Womack).
Regarding claim 1. Bujny teaches a method, the method comprising:
providing a computer system for evaluating a sheet metal component (Par 61, evaluating cost based on model)(Fig 1, cost evaluation), wherein the computer system includes:
an input device for user inputs to the computer system as to parameters associated with the sheet metal component (Par 60, an input to the finite difference sensitivity derivation module) and
a display for notifying the user of estimated values associated with the sheet metal component (Fig 3, displays estimated values)(Fig 7 and 8, displays outputs solutions);
estimating a mass of the sheet metal component, including by:
receiving, through the input device and by a processor of the computer system, a component data file that includes data that defines a geometry of the sheet metal component (Fig 5, metal roll, precut)(Par 60, initial design, input to a finite difference)(Par 62, design representation, extracting geometric features)(Par 105, physical object manufactured from metal roll), wherein the component data file defines thickness of the sheet metal component (Fig 5, t: thickness, t=1mm, Material AL-MG-5182-0);
generating, by the processor, element data based on the component data file, wherein the element data defines a plurality of elements of the sheet metal component (Fig 5, finished part, hole punch)(Par 13, stamped sheet metal assemblies), wherein each element is a face that is polygonal in shape and that defines a part of the sheet metal component (Par 117, element cluster, four elements arranged as a square in a two-dimensional design space);
determining, by the processor, a mass of each element of the plurality of elements based on the element data (Par 12, The material cost is proportional to a mass of the structure, cost dependent on the dimensionless area)(Par 29, total mass of the optimized design constraint) and the average thickness (Fig 5, cost is calculated based on t: thickness);
determining, by the processor, a component mass based on a summation of the masses of the plurality of elements (Par 12, cost is proportional to mass)(Par 100, total cost of the physical object, estimated by summing up individual cost components); and
generating, by the processor, component mass data for display or design based on the determined component mass (Fig 9, cost based TO);
displaying the determined component mass to the user (Fig 5, figures are displayed);
using the determined component mass in evaluating performance of a product within which the sheet metal component is designed to be assembled (Par 29, design that meets the performance requirements and simultaneously respects the cost limitations); and
forming the component for use in the product, wherein an accurate weight of the product is established with reference to the determined component mass (Par 105, physical object is manufactured from raw material provided in form of metal roll and involving cutting and hole-punching processes).
Bujny does not teach projecting variations in thickness, wherein the thickness includes areas of thinning and thickening projected to be created by forming of the sheet metal component; determining, using the element data, an average thickness of each element;
Womack teaches projecting variations in thickness, wherein the thickness includes areas of thinning and thickening projected to be created by forming of the sheet metal component (Par 67, variable thickness throughout, locally thicken)(Par 12, first thickness, second thickness and third thickness); determining, using the element data, an average thickness of each element; (Par 70, multiple zones based on the average thickness).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bujny to incorporate the teachings of Womack to have different thickness in the metal sheet because having a variable thickness allows specific solutions in the desired areas were stiffness is required (Womack, abstract)
Regarding claim 2. Bujny and Womack teach the method of claim 1,
wherein the element data for an element of the plurality of elements comprises node data for each node associated with the element and thickness data associated with each node (Bujny, Par 31, nodes in a finite element mesh (grid), shape optimization)(Bujny, Fig 5, thickness for each cost calculation)(Bujny, Par 12, thickness is adjusted of the connections).
Regarding claim 3. Bujny and Womack teach the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of elements correspond to faces, including the face, of a mesh file of the sheet metal component (Bujny, Par 31, nodes in a finite element mesh (grid), shape optimization)(Bujny, fig 7, element optimization).
Regarding claim 5. Bujny and Womack teach the method of claim 1, further comprising
determining an area of the element of the plurality of elements (Bujny, Par 127, minimizing the area of the MABB);
wherein the determining the mass of each element is based on the area and the average thickness (Bujny, Fig 5, material cost, thickness, density, MP, area correlation factor).
Regarding claim 7. Bujny and Womack teach the method of claim 1, wherein the determining the mass of each element is based on a density of a material of the component (Bujny, Fig 5, material cost, thickness, density, MP, area correlation factor).
Regarding claim 8. Bujny and Womack teach the method of claim 7, further comprising receiving the density from user input (Bujny, Par 34, constraint denote user specified limits (user input))(Bujny, Par 27, varying the material density)(Bujny, Par 13, cost as a constraint)(Bujny, Fig 5, cost is a function of density).
Regarding claim 9. Bujny and Womack teach the method of claim 7, further comprising determining the density from the component data file (Bujny, Par 27, varying the material density).
Regarding claim 10. Bujny and Womack teach the method of claim 1, further comprising
determining a percent difference between a nominal mass of the sheet metal component and the determined component mass (Bujny, Fig 9, cost based TO)(Bujny, Par 127, comparing results, cost based optimization); wherein the component mass data includes the percent difference data (Bujny, Fig 9, cost, -22%); and comprising displaying, by the display, the percent difference data (Bujny, Fig 10, cost change %) and using the percent difference in evaluating the component, including for vehicle fuel economy performance(Womack, Par 9, inefficient with uneven load distribution, having low loads, thickness would be far more than required, thus having added weight, by having different thickness it reduces the cost and weight of the component, therefore decreasing the overall weight of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 11. Bujny teaches a system, the system comprising:
a computer system for evaluating a sheet metal component (Par 61, evaluating cost based on model)(Fig 1, cost evaluation), wherein the computer system includes:, wherein the computer system includes:
an input device for user inputs to the computer system as to parameters associated with the sheet metal component (Par 60, an input to the finite difference sensitivity derivation module) and
a display for notifying the user of estimated values associated with the sheet metal component (Fig 3, displays estimated values)(Fig 7 and 8, displays outputs solutions);
a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores element data that defines a plurality of elements of a sheet metal component (Par 82, cost based model based on OpenCV and MATLAB image processing toolbox, thus using software that requires a computing system to operate, therefore a computer systems comprising a processor connected to memory storing software and data); and
a processor coupled to the non-transitory computer readable medium and configured to estimating a mass of the sheet metal component (Par 3, computer implemented method, CAD, FE), including by:
receiving, through the input device and by a processor of the computer system, a component data file that includes data that defines a geometry of the sheet metal component (Fig 5, metal roll, precut)(Par 60, initial design, input to a finite difference)(Par 62, design representation, extracting geometric features)(Par 105, physical object manufactured from metal roll), wherein the component data file defines thickness of the sheet metal component (Fig 5, t: thickness, t=1mm, Material AL-MG-5182-0);
generating, by the processor, element data based on the component data file, wherein the element data defines a plurality of elements of the sheet metal component (Fig 5, finished part, hole punch)(Par 13, stamped sheet metal assemblies), wherein each element is a face that is polygonal in shape and that defines a part of the sheet metal component (Par 117, element cluster, four elements arranged as a square in a two-dimensional design space);
determining, by the processor, a mass of each element of the plurality of elements based on the element data (Par 12, The material cost is proportional to a mass of the structure, cost dependent on the dimensionless area)(Par 29, total mass of the optimized design constraint) and the average thickness (Fig 5, cost is calculated based on t: thickness);
determining, by the processor, a component mass based on a summation of the masses of the plurality of elements (Par 12, cost is proportional to mass)(Par 100, total cost of the physical object, estimated by summing up individual cost components); and
generating, by the processor, component mass data for display or design based on the determined component mass (Fig 9, cost based TO);
displaying the determined component mass to the user (Fig 5, figures are displayed);
using the determined component mass in evaluating performance of a product within which the sheet metal component is designed to be assembled (Par 29, design that meets the performance requirements and simultaneously respects the cost limitations); and
forming the component for use in the product, wherein an accurate weight of the product is established with reference to the determined component mass (Par 105, physical object is manufactured from raw material provided in form of metal roll and involving cutting and hole-punching processes).
Bujny does not teach projecting variations in thickness, wherein the thickness includes areas of thinning and thickening projected to be created by forming of the sheet metal component; determining, using the element data, an average thickness of each element;
Womack teaches projecting variations in thickness, wherein the thickness includes areas of thinning and thickening projected to be created by forming of the sheet metal component (Par 67, variable thickness throughout, locally thicken)(Par 12, first thickness, second thickness and third thickness); determining, using the element data, an average thickness of each element; (Par 70, multiple zones based on the average thickness).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bujny to incorporate the teachings of Womack to have different thickness in the metal sheet because having a variable thickness allows specific solutions in the desired areas were stiffness is required (Womack, abstract)
Regarding claim 12. Bujny and Womack teach the system of claim 11, wherein the element data for an element of the plurality of elements comprises node data for each node associated with the element and thickness data associated with each node (Bujny, Par 31, nodes in a finite element mesh (grid), shape optimization)(Bujny, Fig 5, thickness for each cost calculation)(Bujny, Par 12, thickness is adjusted of the connections).
Regarding claim 13. Bujny and Womack teach the system of claim 11, wherein the plurality of elements correspond to faces, including the face, of a mesh file of the sheet metal component (Bujny, Par 31, nodes in a finite element mesh (grid), shape optimization)(Bujny, fig 7, element optimization).
Regarding claim 15. Bujny and Womack teach the system of claim 11,
wherein the processor is further configured to determine an area of the element of the plurality of elements (Bujny, Par 127, minimizing the area of the MABB);
wherein the processor determines the mass of each element based on the area and the average thickness (Bujny, Fig 5, material cost, thickness, density, MP, area correlation factor).
Regarding claim 17. Bujny and Womack teach the system of claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to determine the mass of each element based on a density of a material of the sheet metal component (Bujny, Fig 5, material cost, thickness, density, MP, area correlation factor).
Regarding claim 18. Bujny and Womack teach the system of claim 17, wherein the processor is further configured to receive the density from user input (Bujny, Par 34, constraint denote user specified limits (user input))(Bujny, Par 27, varying the material density)(Bujny, Par 13, cost as a constraint)(Bujny, Fig 5, cost is a function of density).
Regarding claim 19. Bujny and Womack teach the system of claim 17, wherein the processor is further configured to determine the density from the component data file (Bujny, Par 27, varying the material density).
Regarding claim 20. Bujny and Womack teach the system of claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to determine a percent difference between a nominal mass of the sheet metal component and the determined component mass (Bujny, Fig 9, cost based TO)(Bujny, Par 127, comparing results, cost based optimization); and
the component mass data includes the percent difference (Bujny, Fig 9, cost, -22%); and comprising displaying, by the display, the percent difference data (Bujny, Fig 10, cost change %) and using the percent difference in evaluating the component, including for vehicle fuel economy performance(Womack, Par 9, inefficient with uneven load distribution, having low loads, thickness would be far more than required, thus having added weight, by having different thickness it reduces the cost and weight of the component, therefore decreasing the overall weight of the vehicle).
Claims 4, 6, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bujny et al., US 2023/0196290 A1, Filed: Dec. 21, 2021, (hereafter Bujny), in views of Womack et al. US 2022/0242486 A1, (hereafter Womack), and in further views of Robitaille, Francois F. CA 2815968 A1, Published 2012/05/10 (hereafter Francois).
Regarding claim 4. Bujny and Womack teach the method of claim 3,
Bujny and Womack do not teach wherein the faces comprise at least one of triangle defined by three nodes and a quadrilateral defined by four nodes.
Francois teaches the faces comprise at least one of triangle defined by three nodes and a quadrilateral defined by four nodes (Par 345, polygon, Fig 89, quadrilateral having 4 different node, Par 346, triangles, fig 90 and 91, a triangle having three nodes).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bujny and Womack to incorporate the teachings of Francois to have a triangles and quadrilateral in the mesh because it gives the flexibility for variations (Francois, Par 346).
Regarding claim 6. Bujny and Womack teach the method of claim 5.
Bujny and Womack do not teach wherein the determining the area is based on heron's formula.
Francois teaches the determining the area is based on heron's formula (Par 356, calculating surface area, using heron’s formula).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bujny and Womack to incorporate the teachings of Francois to calculate the area using the heron’s formula because it provides a known method to calculate the area (Francois, Par 356).
Regarding claim 14. Bujny and Womack teach the system of claim 13.
Bujny and Womack do not teach wherein comprise at least one of triangle defined by three nodes and a quadrilateral defined by four nodes.
Francois teaches at least one of triangle defined by three nodes and a quadrilateral defined by four nodes (Par 345, polygon, Fig 89, quadrilateral having 4 different node, Par 346, triangles, fig 90 and 91, a triangle having three nodes).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bujny and Womack to incorporate the teachings of Francois to have a triangles and quadrilateral in the mesh because it gives the flexibility for variations (Francois, Par 346).
Regarding claim 16. Bujny and Womack teach the system of claim 15, wherein the processor is further configured to.
Bujny and Womack do not teach determine the area based on heron's formula.
Francois teaches determine the area based on heron's formula (Par 356, calculating surface area, using heron’s formula).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bujny and Womack to incorporate the teachings of Francois to calculate the area using the heron’s formula because it provides a known method to calculate the area (Francois, Par 356).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGEL JAVIER CALLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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 (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.
/A.C./ Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights