DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Tsirogiannis, Evangelos, and George-Christopher Vosniakos. "Redesign and topology optimization of an industrial robot link for additive manufacturing." Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering 17.3 (2019): 415-424.
Regarding Claim 1: The reference discloses A method of generating a geometric assembly based on a system model, the method comprising:
receiving user input that specifies the system model, the system model describing a topology of two or more system components, wherein the topology represents connectivity and performance by the two or more system components; (Page 423, Section 5, 2nd paragraph, “At the early design stage, FEA and TO simulations are very effective as the designer can consider the capabilities of AM and obtain the optimal geometry in terms of stress, deformation and weight response.”)
extracting, by a processing device, the topology of the two or more system components from the system model, wherein the topology is represented by two or more connected nodes and describing connectivity and performance by the two or more system components; (Figure 3, RP1, RP2, and RP4 representing node points. See also on page 420 the use of “AbaqusTM C3D10 (10-node quadratic tetrahedron) element type was used in meshing.”)
generating, by the processing device, design spaces for the two or more connected nodes; (Figure 4. Page 420, “The density of the mesh is specified as 5 by creating seeds along the edges of the model. The free meshing technique is selected as it is the most flexible top-down methodology fully associated with the geometry of the model.”)
and generating, by the processing device, geometric representations in the design spaces for each of the two or more connected nodes to form the geometric assembly based on the system model. (Page 417, Section 2.2, last paragraph, “Restrictions on TO apply to the design variables and may refer to (a) ‘frozen’ regions from which material cannot be removed, usually for reasons of interfacing of the part in an assembly, (b) the maximum and minimum member thickness, the former being due to functional reasons and the latter to AM process capability, (c) symmetry required for mass balancing purposes, and (d) avoidance of cavities (voids) or undercuts, due to the AM capabilities, too.”)
Regarding Claim 2: The reference discloses The method of claim 1, wherein extracting the topology of the two or more system components from the system model comprises one or more of: determining positional information of each of the two or more system components; determining connectivity relationships among the two or more system components; identifying centers of gravity of the two or more system components; (Fig. 3 (a) Partitions P1-P2 (b) Load application points (RP1: wrist and tool center of gravity, RP4: forearm center of gravity, RP2: elbow joint torque center) constraining the design spaces for the geometric representations; (Page 421, Section 4.2, 2nd paragraph, “The objective function to minimize the strain values and the solid volume/mass constraint are defined by the user.”) and determining spatial interface positions of the geometric representations. (Page 417, Section 2.2, last paragraph, “Restrictions on TO apply to the design variables and may refer to (a) ‘frozen’ regions from which material cannot be removed, usually for reasons of interfacing of the part in an assembly, (b) the maximum and minimum member thickness, the former being due to functional reasons and the latter to AM process capability, (c) symmetry required for mass balancing purposes, and (d) avoidance of cavities (voids) or undercuts, due to the AM capabilities, too.”)
Regarding Claim 3: The reference discloses The method of claim 1, wherein generating the geometric representations in the design spaces for each of the two or more connected nodes to form the geometric assembly comprises at least one of: selecting, from a library of geometries, a part based on a corresponding connectivity or performance indicated by the extracted topology; generating each of the geometric representations based on a user design input; (Page 421, Section 4.2, 2nd paragraph, “The objective function to minimize the strain values and the solid volume/mass constraint are defined by the user.”) or performing a topology optimization based on the connectivity and the performance of the system model. (Page 417, Section 2.2, “Having achieved a shape compatible with AM, topology optimization for AM follows. TO is usually applied to create lighter and stiffer structures by changing the material and the thickness distribution within the allowable limits dictated by the AM process. Thickness reduction as well as the creation of so-called ‘multiscale’ structures (e.g. foam, 2D and 3D lattice) results in lower residual stresses and lower distortion during and after the AM process.”)
Regarding Claim 4: The reference discloses The method of claim 3, wherein generating the geometric representations in the design spaces for each of the two or more connected nodes to form the geometric assembly further comprises: determining, by the processing device, whether the geometric representations match the connectivity and the performance of the topology of the system model; (Figure 5 whereby the thickness, symmetry, undercuts, and cavities are iterated through the optimization. See also the shape changes in Figure 6) and upon determining that the geometric representations do not match the connectivity and the performance of the topology of the system model, (Page 420, last paragraph, “The results obtained concerning von Mises stresses and deformations are shown in Fig. 4. The results present a maximum stress value of 10.73 MPa and deformations up to 0.09 mm, both being considered low and, thus, acceptable.”) modifying, by the processing device, at least one of the geometric representations to reduce differences between a connectivity or performance of the received and modified geometric representations and the connectivity and the performance of the topology of the system model. (Figure 5 and bottom of page 421 Section 4.2)
Regarding Claim 5: The reference discloses The method of claim 4, wherein modifying the at least one of the geometric representations comprises: changing one or more parameters associated with dimensions, shapes, mating or boundary conditions, or centers of gravity of the at least one of the geometric representations; (Fig. 3 (a) Partitions P1-P2 (b) Load application points (RP1: wrist and tool center of gravity, RP4: forearm center of gravity, RP2: elbow joint torque center) and iterating changes of the one or more parameters until the modified geometric representations match the connectivity and performance of the system model. (Figure 5 whereby the thickness, symmetry, undercuts, and cavities are iterated through the optimization. See also the shape changes in Figure 6)
Regarding Claim 6: The reference discloses The method of claim 5, wherein determining, by the processing device, whether the geometric representations match the connectivity and the performance of the topology of the system model comprises: performing a simulation of movements of the geometric representations based on inputs for the system model; (Page 423, Section 5, 2nd paragraph, “At the early design stage, FEA and TO simulations are very effective as the designer can consider the capabilities of AM and obtain the optimal geometry in terms of stress, deformation and weight response.”) analyzing stresses and deformations of the geometric representations for comparison with corresponding expected values of the system model; (Page 420, last paragraph, “The results obtained concerning von Mises stresses and deformations are shown in Fig. 4. The results present a maximum stress value of 10.73 MPa and deformations up to 0.09 mm, both being considered low and, thus, acceptable.”) and determining that the geometric representations do not match the connectivity and the performance of the topology of the system model when the stresses and deformations exceed the expected values of the system model. (Figure 5 and bottom of page 421 Section 4.2)
Regarding Claim 7: The reference discloses The method of claim 3, wherein the geometric representations forming the geometric assembly comprise shapes to be produced by additive manufacturing without assembly. (Page 416, 1st paragraph, “In the past, lightweight structures resulting from topology optimization were meant to be produced by material removal or other conventional manufacturing technologies, but, more recently, Additive Manufacturing (AM) methods are focused on [12, 13]. AM, a layer-wise material addition process family, may enable complex geometry and material distribution [14] with increases in strength and stiffness, and, at the same time, reduced weight of the part.”)
Regarding Claim 8: The reference discloses A method of generating a geometric assembly based on a system model, the method comprising:
receiving the system model from a system modeling environment, the system model describing a topology of two or more system components, wherein the topology represents connectivity and performance by the two or more system components; (Figure 3)
extracting, by a processing device, the topology of the two or more system components from the system model, wherein the topology is represented by two or more connected nodes; (Figure 3, RP1, RP2, and RP4 representing node points. See also on page 420 the use of “AbaqusTM C3D10 (10-node quadratic tetrahedron) element type was used in meshing.”)
receiving geometric representations for the two or more connected nodes; (Figure 3)
determining, by the processing device, whether the received geometric representations match the connectivity and the performance of the topology of the system model; and (Figure 4. Page 420, “The density of the mesh is specified as 5 by creating seeds along the edges of the model. The free meshing technique is selected as it is the most flexible top-down methodology fully associated with the geometry of the model.”)
upon determining that the received geometric representations do not match the connectivity and the performance of the topology of the system model, modifying, by the processing device, at least one of the geometric representations to reduce differences between a connectivity or performance of the received and modified geometric representations and the connectivity and the performance of the topology of the system model. (Figure 5 and bottom of page 421 Section 4.2)
Regarding Claim 9: The reference discloses The method of claim 8, wherein receiving the geometric representations comprises: providing a geometric modeling environment the extracted topology including positions and constraints of each of the two or more connected nodes; (Figure 3, RP1, RP2, and RP4 representing node points. See also on page 420 the use of “AbaqusTM C3D10 (10-node quadratic tetrahedron) element type was used in meshing.”) and receiving the geometric representations from the geometric modeling environment, wherein the geometric representations are generated according to the positions and constraints of the two or more connected nodes. (Figure 4. Page 420, “The density of the mesh is specified as 5 by creating seeds along the edges of the model. The free meshing technique is selected as it is the most flexible top-down methodology fully associated with the geometry of the model.”)
Regarding Claim 10: The reference discloses The method of claim 9, wherein each of the geometric representations is generated in the geometric modeling environment based on at least one of: a part selection from a library of geometries based on a corresponding connectivity or performance indicated by the extracted topology; a user design input; (Page 421, Section 4.2, 2nd paragraph, “The objective function to minimize the strain values and the solid volume/mass constraint are defined by the user.”) or an output of a topology optimization. (Page 417, Section 2.2, “Having achieved a shape compatible with AM, topology optimization for AM follows. TO is usually applied to create lighter and stiffer structures by changing the material and the thickness distribution within the allowable limits dictated by the AM process. Thickness reduction as well as the creation of so-called ‘multiscale’ structures (e.g. foam, 2D and 3D lattice) results in lower residual stresses and lower distortion during and after the AM process.”)
Regarding Claim 11: The reference discloses The method of claim 8, wherein determining, by the processing device, whether the received geometric representations match the connectivity and the performance of the topology of the system model comprises: performing a simulation of movements of the geometric representations based on inputs for the system model; (Page 423, Section 5, 2nd paragraph, “At the early design stage, FEA and TO simulations are very effective as the designer can consider the capabilities of AM and obtain the optimal geometry in terms of stress, deformation and weight response.”) and analyzing stresses and deformations of the geometric representations for comparison with corresponding expected values of the system model. (Page 423, Section 5, 2nd paragraph, “At the early design stage, FEA and TO simulations are very effective as the designer can consider the capabilities of AM and obtain the optimal geometry in terms of stress, deformation and weight response.”)
Regarding Claim 12: The reference discloses The method of claim 11, further comprising determining that the received geometric representations do not match the connectivity and the performance of the topology of the system model when the stresses and deformations exceed the expected values of the system model. (Page 420, last paragraph, “The results obtained concerning von Mises stresses and deformations are shown in Fig. 4. The results present a maximum stress value of 10.73 MPa and deformations up to 0.09 mm, both being considered low and, thus, acceptable.”)
Regarding Claim 13: The reference discloses The method of claim 8, wherein extracting the topology of the two or more system components from the system model comprises one or more of: obtaining positional information of each of the two or more system components; (Figure 1) identifying connectivity relationships among the two or more system components; (Figure 1) identifying centers of gravity of the two or more system components; (Fig. 3 (a) Partitions P1-P2 (b) Load application points (RP1: wrist and tool center of gravity, RP4: forearm center of gravity, RP2: elbow joint torque center) constraining design spaces for the geometric representations; (Page 421, Section 4.2, 2nd paragraph, “The objective function to minimize the strain values and the solid volume/mass constraint are defined by the user.”) and determining spatial interface positions of the geometric representations. (Page 417, Section 2.2, last paragraph, “Restrictions on TO apply to the design variables and may refer to (a) ‘frozen’ regions from which material cannot be removed, usually for reasons of interfacing of the part in an assembly, (b) the maximum and minimum member thickness, the former being due to functional reasons and the latter to AM process capability, (c) symmetry required for mass balancing purposes, and (d) avoidance of cavities (voids) or undercuts, due to the AM capabilities, too.”)
Regarding Claim 14: The reference discloses The method of claim 8, wherein modifying the at least one of the geometric representations comprises: changing one or more parameters associated with dimensions, shapes, mating or boundary conditions, or centers of gravity of the at least one of the geometric representations; and iterating changes of the one or more parameters until the modified geometric representations match the connectivity and performance of the system model. (Figure 5 whereby the thickness, symmetry, undercuts, and cavities are iterated through the optimization. See also the shape changes in Figure 6)
Regarding Claim 15: The reference discloses A system of generating a geometric assembly based on a system model, the system comprising:
a memory; and a processing device coupled to the memory, the processing device and the memory configured to:
receive user input that specifies the system model, the system model describing a topology of two or more system components, wherein the topology represents connectivity and performance by the two or more system components; (Page 421, Section 4.2, 2nd paragraph, “In the first phase, attempts were made to achieve a modified forearm design with reduced mass retaining in parallel the strength and stiffness characteristics of the initial design. The objective function to minimize the strain values and the solid volume/mass constraint are defined by the user.”)
extract, by a processing device, the topology of the two or more system components from the system model, wherein the topology is represented by two or more connected nodes and describing connectivity and performance by the two or more system components; (Figure 3, RP1, RP2, and RP4 representing node points. See also on page 420 the use of “AbaqusTM C3D10 (10-node quadratic tetrahedron) element type was used in meshing.”)
generate, by the processing device, design spaces for the two or more connected nodes; and (Figure 3)
generate, by the processing device, geometric representations in the design spaces for each of the two or more connected nodes to form the geometric assembly based on the system model. (Figure 4. Page 420, “The density of the mesh is specified as 5 by creating seeds along the edges of the model. The free meshing technique is selected as it is the most flexible top-down methodology fully associated with the geometry of the model.”)
Regarding Claim 16: The reference discloses The system of claim 15, wherein the processing device and the memory are configured to extract the topology of the two or more system components from the system model by performing one or more of the following: determining positional information of each of the two or more system components; determining connectivity relationships among the two or more system components; (Figure 3, RP1, RP2, and RP4 representing node points. See also on page 420 the use of “AbaqusTM C3D10 (10-node quadratic tetrahedron) element type was used in meshing.”) identifying centers of gravity of the two or more system components; (Fig. 3 (a) Partitions P1-P2 (b) Load application points (RP1: wrist and tool center of gravity, RP4: forearm center of gravity, RP2: elbow joint torque center) constraining the design spaces for the geometric representations; (Page 421, Section 4.2, 2nd paragraph, “The objective function to minimize the strain values and the solid volume/mass constraint are defined by the user.”) and determining spatial interface positions of the geometric representations. (Page 417, Section 2.2, last paragraph, “Restrictions on TO apply to the design variables and may refer to (a) ‘frozen’ regions from which material cannot be removed, usually for reasons of interfacing of the part in an assembly, (b) the maximum and minimum member thickness, the former being due to functional reasons and the latter to AM process capability, (c) symmetry required for mass balancing purposes, and (d) avoidance of cavities (voids) or undercuts, due to the AM capabilities, too.”)
Regarding Claim 17: The reference discloses The system of claim 15, wherein the processing device and the memory are configured to generate the geometric representations in the design spaces for each of the two or more connected nodes to form the geometric assembly by performing at least one of: selecting, from a library of geometries, a part based on a corresponding connectivity or performance indicated by the extracted topology; generating each of the geometric representations based on a user design input; (Page 421, Section 4.2, 2nd paragraph, “The objective function to minimize the strain values and the solid volume/mass constraint are defined by the user.”) or performing a topology optimization based on the connectivity and the performance of the system model. (Page 417, Section 2.2, “Having achieved a shape compatible with AM, topology optimization for AM follows. TO is usually applied to create lighter and stiffer structures by changing the material and the thickness distribution within the allowable limits dictated by the AM process. Thickness reduction as well as the creation of so-called ‘multiscale’ structures (e.g. foam, 2D and 3D lattice) results in lower residual stresses and lower distortion during and after the AM process.”)
Regarding Claim 18: The reference discloses The system of claim 17, wherein the processing device and the memory are configured to generate the geometric representations in the design spaces for each of the two or more connected nodes to form the geometric assembly by further performing the following: determining, by the processing device, whether the geometric representations match the connectivity and the performance of the topology of the system model; (Figure 5 whereby the thickness, symmetry, undercuts, and cavities are iterated through the optimization. See also the shape changes in Figure 6) and upon determining that the geometric representations do not match the connectivity and the performance of the topology of the system model, (Figure 5 and bottom of page 421 Section 4.2) modifying, by the processing device, at least one of the geometric representations to reduce differences between a connectivity or performance of the received and modified geometric representations and the connectivity and the performance of the topology of the system model. (Figure 5 and bottom of page 421 Section 4.2)
Regarding Claim 19: The reference discloses The system of claim 18, wherein the processing device and the memory are configured to modify the at least one of the geometric representations by: changing one or more parameters associated with dimensions, shapes, mating or boundary conditions, or centers of gravity of the at least one of the geometric representations; (Fig. 3 (a) Partitions P1-P2 (b) Load application points (RP1: wrist and tool center of gravity, RP4: forearm center of gravity, RP2: elbow joint torque center) and iterating changes of the one or more parameters until the modified geometric representations match the connectivity and performance of the system model. (Figure 5 whereby the thickness, symmetry, undercuts, and cavities are iterated through the optimization. See also the shape changes in Figure 6)
Regarding Claim 20: The reference discloses The system of claim 19, wherein the processing device and the memory are configured to determine whether the geometric representations match the connectivity and the performance of the topology of the system model by: performing a simulation of movements of the geometric representations based on inputs for the system model; (Page 423, Section 5, 2nd paragraph, “At the early design stage, FEA and TO simulations are very effective as the designer can consider the capabilities of AM and obtain the optimal geometry in terms of stress, deformation and weight response.”) analyzing stresses and deformations of the geometric representations for comparison with corresponding expected values of the system model; (Page 420, last paragraph, “The results obtained concerning von Mises stresses and deformations are shown in Fig. 4. The results present a maximum stress value of 10.73 MPa and deformations up to 0.09 mm, both being considered low and, thus, acceptable.”) and determining that the geometric representations do not match the connectivity and the performance of the topology of the system model when the stresses and deformations exceed the expected values of the system model. (Figure 5 and bottom of page 421 Section 4.2)
Conclusion
4. All Claims are rejected.
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
i) U.S. Patent Publication No. 20190339687
ii) Dong, Guoying, Yunlong Tang, and Yaoyao Fiona Zhao. "Simulation of elastic properties of solid-lattice hybrid structures fabricated by additive manufacturing." Procedia Manufacturing 10 (2017): 760-770.
iii) Zhou, Yuqing, and Kazuhiro Saitou. "Gradient-based multi-component topology optimization for additive manufacturing (MTO-A)." International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. Vol. 58127. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2017.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saif A. Alhija whose telephone number is (571) 272-8635. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10:00-6:00.
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, Renee Chavez, can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Informal or draft communication, please label PROPOSED or DRAFT, can be additionally sent to the Examiners fax phone number, (571) 273-8635.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
SAA
/SAIF A ALHIJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186