DETAILED ACTION
Receipt of Applicant’s amendment filed 11/26/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 8-20 have been amended.
Drawings (Fig.2B) has been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/22/2025 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although
the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to
the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply
as well. Examiner may also include cited interpretations encompassed within parenthesis, e.g. (Examiner’s interpretation), for clarity. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
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.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Acknowledgement is made of amended independent claims 1, 4, 5, and 8-20. Applicants arguments have been fully considered, but were not persuasive for at least
the reasons given below and within Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 section.
Rejections to claims 1-20 are maintained.
Applicant argues that the claims recite operations that cannot be performed by the human mind (with/without pen/paper), thus “do not recite a mental process” [Pg.1 Ln.12]. Applicant also argues [Pg.2 Ln.12-15] that the plain meaning of claim language requires manipulation of computer data structures, i.e. “the mind is not equipped” to perform the recited limitations. Additionally, Applicant argues [Pg.4 Ln.9] independent claim 1 recites elements that integrate “any alleged judicial exception into a practical application”. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The steps of the subject matter eligibility analysis for products and processes that are to be used during examination for evaluating whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter is the following:
Step 1: Determine if the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter. Claims 1-7 are directed to a method, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a process. Claims 8-13 are directed to a system, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of machine. Claims 14-20 are directed towards non-transitory CRM, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of manufacture.
Step 2A: Determine if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature), or an abstract idea. Independent claims 1, 8, and 14 are all directed towards an abstract idea (mental processes performed on a computer) – see 35 USC §101 analysis below.
Step 2B: Determine if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As shown in 35 USC §101 analysis section below, the additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering) and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f)/(g). The additional claim limitations identified (e.g. Claim 1) can be summarized as receiving data (i.e. obtaining a digital 3D model) and performing a numerical simulation (i.e. repetitive calculations). Receiving data amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). Performing a numerical simulation is interpreted as numerical simulation which amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, i.e. repetitive calculations, which a person can reasonably perform with/without the aid of pen/paper. Per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include... v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Per MPEP 2106.05(d), another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations (i.e. numerical simulation), iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.
Since the additional elements of receiving data and performing a numerical simulation are directed towards Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (pre- solution, mere data gathering) and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, and have been determined to be well understood, routine, conventional activity per MPEP 2106.05(d), claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Similar rationale for rejection is provided for claims 2-20 below.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
Acknowledgement is made of amended Claims 1, 4, 5, and 8-20. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this office action.
Rejections to claims 1-20 are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments [Pg.5] with respect to claim(s) 1-4 are moot due to new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Applicant’s claim 8 argument [Pg.6 Ln.12-16] is moot due to new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Regarding claim 8, Applicant also argues [Pg.6 Ln.17-20] Saeki fails to disclose "performance of the numerical fluid simulation comprises modifying a thermal property of the numerical fluid simulation to account for the regularly patterned holes in the first portion of the digital 3D model based at least in part on the thermal factor". Examiner respectfully disagrees. Given Applicant’s disclosure, “in implementations where plastic mold injection is being simulated [ ] thermal properties (density and heat capacity) of the molding material are modified” [Spec. P.0046-47], the Examiner interprets “modifying a thermal property” as an inherent property of the material used in the simulation, i.e. an initial input into the simulation. Saeki discloses “a specific example of the space / obstacle separation analysis portion 16 in the thermosets flow analysis portion 13 will be described. The space/obstacle separation analysis portion 16 sets an initial time to a time
t
. Then, using a viscosity equation 18 for thermosets, and the temperature and time conditions, viscosity at a time t is computed for each of the 3-dimensional solid elements (S208) [ ] In addition, an isothermal viscosity equation may be expressed by the following equations 1 to 4 [ ] Where, Ƞ is viscosity,
t
is time,
T
is temperature, Ƞ0 is an initial viscosity,
t
0 is a gel time,
C
is a coefficient of determining viscosity rise, and a, b, d, e, f and g are coefficients inherent to material. FIG. 4 shows isothermal characteristics of this viscosity equation. At each temperature
T
, viscosity turns into the initial viscosity at a time
t
, and the viscosity increases as curing reaction advances with time” Saeki [P.0063-65]. Note: space / obstacle is interpreted as regularly patterned holes because “The space/obstacle combination analysis portion 17 is directed to a flow path shape in which holes having the same cross-sectional shape are regularly provided in the 3-dimensional directions” Saeki [P.0054]. Thus, Applicant’s argument not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments [Pg.8] with respect to claim(s) 5-7 are moot due to new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Applicant’s arguments [Pg.8-9] with respect to claim(s) 10-13 have been fully considered but were not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments were addressed above for claim 8, from which claims 10-13 depend.
Applicant argues [Pg.9-10] regarding claim 14, the combination of Saeki/Tseng fail to disclose the amended limitation “using a volume fraction of the first portion of the digital 3D model including the regularly patterned holes”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tseng [Col.3-4 Ln.65-4] discloses “the present invention provides a method for determining orientation of fibers in a fluid having polymer chains, the fibers in the fluid including a transitional movement and a rotatory movement, the method being characterized in that the determining of the orientation of the fibers is performed by taking into consideration a steric barrier effect on a rotary movement of the fibers.” Determining orientation of fibers in a fluid having polymer chains is interpreted to use a volume fraction because “A high viscosity silicone oil of polydimethylsiloxane is selected as the suspending medium. Various fibers are immersed in the silicone oil. Nylon, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), and Vectran® fibers are referred to as NS, PS, and VS. The flexibility of a fiber can be quantified by the Young modulus E
γ
. The values of E
γ
for NS, PS, and VS are 2, 26, and 76 GPa, respectively. The aspect ratio of these fibers is 70 at the same value. The volume fraction is
ϕ
=0.03” Tseng [Col.21 Ln.39]. Thus, Applicant’s argument wasn’t persuasive.
Applicant argues [Pg.10] regarding claim 14, Tseng fails to disclose “modifying a fiber orientation property of the numerical fluid simulation to account for the regularly patterned holes in the first portion of the digital 3D model based at least in part on the fiber orientation factor". The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tseng [Col.6 Ln.45-50] discloses “considering the interaction between the fibers and the fluid affecting the fiber orientation... As this interaction exists, intrinsic changes in configuration of the polymer chain structure (i.e. modified fiber orientation property) induce incidental changes in fiber orientation.” Thus, Applicant’s argument wasn’t persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments [Pg.10] with respect to claim(s) 17-19 have been fully considered but were not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments were addressed above for claim 14, from which claims 17-19 depend.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception (an abstract idea), as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) further do/does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claim(s) under the framework provided in MPEP 2106 and has provided such analysis below.
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:
Step 1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category of a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or a Composition of Matter (see MPEP 2106.03);
Step 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 (MPEP 2106.04);
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).
Step 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).
Step 1:
Claims 1-7 are directed to a method, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a process.
Claims 8-13 are directed to a system, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of machine.
Claims 14-20 are directed towards non-transitory CRM, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Claim 1):
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover mental processes performed on a computer, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per claim 1, the claim recites the limitations of:
;
identifying a first portion of the digital 3D model, the first portion of the
digital 3D model corresponding to a first component portion including the
regularly patterned holes; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) which are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind (e.g. observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. Specifically, this limitation recites mental processes performed on a computer. For instance, a person can reasonably inspect a 3D model for regularly patterned holes and then identify a first portion of the model with/without the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, to “identify” is inherent to a mental process since it requires evaluation and judgement/opinion.)
identifying a second portion of the digital 3D model, the second portion of the digital 3D model including parts of the digital 3D model corresponding to a second component portion lacking the regularly patterned holes; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Specifically, this limitation recites mental processes performed on a computer. For instance, a person can reasonably inspect a 3D model for regularly patterned holes and then identify a second portion of a model lacking regularly patterned holes with/without the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, to “identify” is inherent to a mental process since it requires evaluation and judgement/opinion.)
determining a flow factor of the first portion of the digital 3D model using
one or more of a width of the regularly patterned holes, a depth of the regularly patterned holes, or a distance between the regularly patterned holes, the flow factor indicating flow characteristics of fluid flowing through the first portion of the digital 3D model with the regularly patterned holes; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Specifically, this limitation recites mental processes performed on a computer. For instance, a person can reasonably determine a flow factor with/without the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, to “determine” is inherent to a mental process since it requires evaluation and judgement/opinion.)
and
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Claim 1):
As per independent claim 1, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception and/or insignificant extra solution activity.
In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
obtaining a digital 3D model of a component to be analyzed, the component
including regularly patterned holes; (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process.)
and performing a numerical fluid simulation, using a discretizing mesh
applied to the digital 3D model and representative of the component geometry of the component to be analyzed without the regularly patterned holes, the performing comprising modifying a flow property of the fluid simulation to account for the regularly patterned holes in the first portion of the digital 3D model based at least in part on the flow factor. (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f), i.e. the limitation is directed towards mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e. mental process) on a computer and does not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent). Specifically, the limitation merely invokes computers or other machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” The act of performing a numerical simulation is considered using a computer in its ordinary compacity.)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B (Claim 1):
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts 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 additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards Insignificant Extra-solution Activity and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f)/(g).
Also, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network,
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Claim 8):
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover mental processes performed on a computer, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per independent claim 8, the claim recites the limitations of:
identify a first portion of the digital 3D model, the first portion of the digital 3D model corresponding to a first component portion including the regularly patterned holes; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) which are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind (e.g. observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. Specifically, this limitation recites mental processes performed on a computer. For instance, a person can reasonably inspect a 3D model for regularly patterned holes and then identify a first portion of the model with/without the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, to “identify” is inherent to a mental process since it requires evaluation and judgement/opinion.)
identifying a second portion of the digital 3D model, the second portion of the digital 3D model including parts of the digital 3D model corresponding to a second component portion lacking the regularly patterned holes; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Specifically, this limitation recites mental processes performed on a computer. For instance, a person can reasonably inspect a 3D model for regularly patterned holes and then identify a second portion of a model lacking regularly patterned holes with/without the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, to “identify” is inherent to a mental process since it requires evaluation and judgement/opinion.)
determine a thermal factor of the first portion of the digital 3D model using a volume fraction of the first portion including the regularly patterned holes and/or a shape factor of the regularly patterned holes, the thermal factor indicating a thermal characteristic of fluid flowing through the first portion of the digital 3D model with the regularly patterned holes, the thermal factor comprising a growth rate of a frozen layer; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Specifically, this limitation recites mental processes performed on a computer. For instance, a person can reasonably determine a thermal factor with/without the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, to “determine” is inherent to a mental process since it requires evaluation and judgement/opinion.)
and
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Claim 8):
As per independent claim 8, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception and/or insignificant extra solution activity.
In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
A system comprising: one or more processors; and a computer-readable medium storing instructions executable by the one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to: (The additional claim limitation amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, this limitation amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.)
obtain a digital 3D model of a component to be analyzed, the component including regularly patterned holes; (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process.)
and perform a numerical fluid simulation using a discretizing mesh applied to the digital 3D model and representative of the component geometry of the component to be analyzed without the regularly patterned holes, wherein performance of the numerical fluid simulation comprises modifying a thermal property of the numerical fluid simulation to account for the regularly patterned holes in the first portion of the digital 3D model based at least in part on the thermal factor, the numerical fluid simulation used to determine an injection flow rate or an injection location of an injection mold. (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f), i.e. the limitation is directed towards mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e. mental process) on a computer and does not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent). Specifically, the limitation merely invokes computers or other machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” The act of performing a numerical simulation is considered using a computer in its ordinary compacity.)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B (Claim 8):
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts 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 additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards Insignificant Extra-solution Activity and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f)/(g).
Also, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network,
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 8 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Claim 14):
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover mental processes performed on a computer, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per independent claim 14, the claim recites the limitations of:
identifying a first portion of the digital 3D model, the first portion of the
digital 3D model corresponding to a first component portion including the
regularly patterned holes; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) which are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind (e.g. observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. Specifically, this limitation recites mental processes performed on a computer. For instance, a person can reasonably inspect a 3D model for regularly patterned holes and then identify a first portion of the model with/without the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, to “identify” is inherent to a mental process since it requires evaluation and judgement/opinion.)
identifying a second portion of the digital 3D model, the second portion of the digital 3D model including parts of the digital 3D model corresponding to a second component portion lacking the regularly patterned holes; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Specifically, this limitation recites mental processes performed on a computer. For instance, a person can reasonably inspect a 3D model for regularly patterned holes and then identify a second portion of a model lacking regularly patterned holes with/without the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, to “identify” is inherent to a mental process since it requires evaluation and judgement/opinion.)
determining a fiber orientation factor using a volume fraction of the first portion of the digital 3D model including the regularly patterned holes, the fiber orientation factor indicating fiber orientation characteristics indicative of fiber orientation properties of fibers suspended within a fluid flowing through the first portion of the digital 3D model with the regularly patterned holes; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Specifically, this limitation recites mental processes performed on a computer. For instance, a person can reasonably determine a fiber orientation factor with/without the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, to “determine” is inherent to a mental process since it requires evaluation and judgement/opinion.)
and
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Claim 14):
As per independent claim 14, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception and/or insignificant extra solution activity.
In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions executable by one or more processors to perform operations comprising: (The additional claim limitation amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, this limitation amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.)
obtaining a digital 3D model of a component to be analyzed, the component including regularly patterned holes; (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process.)
and performing a numerical fluid simulation, using a discretizing mesh applied to the digital 3D model and representative of the component geometry of the component to be analyzed without the regularly patterned holes, the performing comprising modifying a fiber orientation property of the numerical fluid simulation to account for the regularly patterned holes in the first portion of the digital 3D model based at least in part on the fiber orientation factor (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f), i.e. the limitation is directed towards mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e. mental process) on a computer and does not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent). Specifically, the limitation merely invokes computers or other machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” The act of performing a numerical fluid simulation is considered using a computer in its ordinary compacity.)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B (Claim 14):
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts 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 additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards Insignificant Extra-solution Activity and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f)/(g).
Also, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network,
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 14 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2 further recites, determining a thermal factor, the thermal factor indicating thermal characteristics of fluid flowing through the first portion with the regularly patterned holes, the thermal factor including a growth rate of a frozen layer. The additional claim elements further amount to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably determine (observation, evaluation, judgement) a thermal factor indicating thermal characteristics of fluid flowing with/without the aid of pen and paper.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3 further recites, modifying the flow factor dynamically to account for a growth rate of a frozen layer. The additional limitations, as written, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, the claim limitations recite only the idea of a solution or an outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4 further recites, wherein the regularly patterned holes are included in the digital 3D model, the method further comprising: removing the regularly patterned holes in the digital 3D model; and creating the discretizing mesh, used to perform the numerical fluid simulation, after removing the regularly patterned holes in the digital 3D model. The additional limitations, as written, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, the claim limitations recite only the idea of a solution or an outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Additionally, the claim merely invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5 further recites, wherein the regularly patterned holes are omitted from the digital 3D model, the method further comprising: obtaining flow characteristics of the first portion of the digital 3D model using analytical flow results or empirical flow data, The additional limitations, as written, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, the claim limitations recite only the idea of a solution or an outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
wherein determining the flow factor is done based on the analytical flow results or the empirical flow data; The additional limitations, as written, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, the claim limitations recite only the idea of a solution or an outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
obtaining thermal characteristics of the first portion of the digital 3D model using analytical thermal results or empirical thermal data; The additional limitations, as written, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, the claim limitations recite only the idea of a solution or an outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
determining a thermal factor based on the analytical thermal results or the empirical thermal data; The additional limitations, as written, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, the claim limitations recite only the idea of a solution or an outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
obtaining fiber orientation characteristics of the first portion of the digital 3D model using analytical results or empirical fiber orientation data for fibers suspended in the fluid flow; The additional limitations, as written, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, the claim limitations recite only the idea of a solution or an outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
and determining a fiber orientation factor based on the analytical results or the empirical fiber orientation data. The additional limitations, as written, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, the claim limitations recite only the idea of a solution or an outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6 further recites, wherein the regularly patterned holes comprise blind holes, wherein determining the flow factor comprises obtaining flow characteristics of the blind holes using analytical results or empirical data. The additional limitations, as written, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, the claim limitations recite only the idea of a solution or an outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7 further recites, wherein the regularly patterned holes comprise a varied profile hole, wherein the varied profile hole defines a varied cross-sectional shape across a depth of the hole, wherein determining the flow factor comprises obtaining flow characteristics of the varied profile hole using analytical results or empirical data. The additional limitations, as written, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, the claim limitations recite only the idea of a solution or an outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9, the system of Claim 8, recites substantially the same subject matter as Claim 4 and is rejected under similar rationale. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10, the system of Claim 8, further recites wherein the regularly patterned holes are omitted from the digital 3D model, wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processor to: obtain flow characteristics of the first portion of the digital 3D model using analytical flow results or empirical flow data; (The additional limitations, as written, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, the claim limitations recite only the idea of a solution or an outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.)
determine a flow factor of the first portion of the digital 3D model, the flow factor indicating flow characteristics of fluid flowing through the first portion of the digital 3D model with the regularly patterned holes, wherein determination of the flow factor is done based on the analytical flow results or the empirical flow data; (The additional limitations, as written, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, the claim limitations recite only the idea of a solution or an outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.)
obtain thermal characteristics of the first portion of the digital 3D model using analytical thermal results or empirical thermal data, wherein determination of the thermal factor is done based on the analytical thermal results or empirical thermal data; (The additional limitations, as written, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, the claim limitations recite only the idea of a solution or an outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.)
obtain fiber orientation characteristics of the first portion of the digital 3D model using analytical results or empirical fiber orientation data for fibers suspended in the fluid flow; (The additional limitations, as written, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, the claim limitations recite only the idea of a solution or an outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.)
and determine a fiber orientation factor based on the analytical results or the empirical fiber orientation data. (The additional limitations, as written, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, the claim limitations recite only the idea of a solution or an outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.)
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11, the system of Claim 10, recites substantially the same subject matter as Claim 3 and is rejected under similar rationale. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12, the system of Claim 10, recites substantially the same subject matter as Claim 6 and is rejected under similar rationale. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 13, the system of Claim 10, recites substantially the same subject matter as Claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 15, the CRM (computer-readable medium) of Claim 14, recites substantially the same subject matter as Claims 1 and 2 respectively, and is rejected under similar rationale. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 16, the CRM of Claim 15, recites substantially the same subject matter as Claim 3 and is rejected under similar rationale. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 17, the CRM of Claim 15, recites substantially the same subject matter as Claim 6 and is rejected under similar rationale. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 18, the CRM of Claim 15, recites substantially the same subject matter as Claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 19, the non-transitory CRM of Claim 15, further recites determining an injection rate, with iterative calculations using the discretizing mesh, based in part on the flow factor and the thermal factor; (The additional limitations, as written, amount to Mathematical Concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number.)
determining an injection temperature, with iterative calculations using the discretizing mesh, based in part on the flow factor and the thermal factor; (The additional limitations, as written, amount to Mathematical Concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2))
and determining an injection location, with iterative calculations using the discretizing mesh, based in part on the determined injection rate and injection temperature. (The additional limitations, as written, amount to Mathematical Concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2))
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 20, the non-transitory CRM of Claim 14, recites substantially the same subject matter as Claim 4 and is rejected under similar rationale. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham V. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki et al. US Pub No. 2008/0234989 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Saeki”) in view of Jay, Shoemaker. "Moldflow design guide: a resource for plastics engineers." Hanser, Cop (2006) (hereinafter referred to as “Shoemaker”), in further view of Friedl et al. US Patent No. US 6816820 B1 (hereinafter referred to as “Friedl”).
Regarding claim 1, Saeki discloses, obtaining a digital 3D model of a component to be analyzed, (“The model creation portion includes: a space/obstacle combination model creation portion for creating a space/obstacle combination model formed of a 3-dimensional solid element” Saeki [P.0013])
the component including regularly patterned holes; (“The space/obstacle combination analysis portion 17 is directed to a flow path shape in which holes having the same cross-sectional shape are regularly provided in the 3-dimensional directions [P.0054])
identifying a first portion of the digital 3D model, the first portion of the digital 3D model corresponding to a first component portion including the regularly patterned holes; (“The space/obstacle separation model creation portion 14 selects a place where a space and an obstacle (i.e. regularly patterned holes) can be separated from each other (i.e. identifies a first portion of the model) in the manner of the shape data, and sets the space directly to be a flow path” Saeki [P.0049]. Obstacle is interpreted to include regularly patterned holes because “The space/obstacle combination model creation portion 15 specifies a place where an obstacle regularly arranged in an analysis object region... That is, each specified place is replaced with porous media” [P.0050], and “The space/obstacle combination analysis portion 17 is directed to a flow path shape in which holes having the same cross-sectional shape are regularly provided in the 3-dimensional directions, respectively, as porous media” Saeki [P.0054])
identifying a second portion of the digital 3D model, the second portion of the digital 3D model including parts of the digital 3D model corresponding to a second component portion lacking the regularly patterned holes; (“The space / obstacle separation model creation portion 14 selects a place where a space and an obstacle (i.e. regularly patterned holes) can be separated from each other (i.e. identifies a second portion of the model) in the manner of the shape data, and sets the space directly to be a flow path” Saeki [P.0049]. Obstacle is interpreted to include regularly patterned holes because “The space/obstacle combination model creation portion 15 specifies a place where an obstacle regularly arranged in an analysis object region... That is, each specified place is replaced with porous media” [P.0050], and “The space/obstacle combination analysis portion 17 is directed to a flow path shape in which holes having the same cross-sectional shape are regularly provided in the 3-dimensional directions, respectively, as porous media” Saeki [P.0054])
,
the flow factor indicating flow characteristics of fluid flowing through the first portion of the digital 3D model with the regularly patterned holes; (“the space/obstacle combination model portion in which narrow gaps are regularly arranged... in this portion, an inherent flow resistance (i.e. flow factor) of cross-section is independently set in 3-dimensional directions” Saeki [P.0014]. Flow resistance is interpreted to mean flow factor due to Applicant’s disclosure, “Flow Resistance Factor is the flow factor” Spec. [P.0043])
and performing a numerical fluid simulation (“According to the present
invention, the process of encapsulating, with thermosets, a product including both of a place in which obstacles having many, very narrow gaps are regularly arranged, and a wide flow path can be quickly and accurately simulated in flow-simulation” Saeki [P.0016]), , the performing comprising modifying a flow property of the fluid simulation to account for the regularly patterned holes in the first portion of the digital 3D model based at least in part on the flow factor. (“because the space/obstacle combination model portion in which narrow gaps are regularly arranged can be viewed as porous media... an inherent flow resistance (i.e. flow factor) of cross-section is independently set in 3-dimensional directions, and a dynamic equation is formed by expressing a pressure drop in the 3-dimensional directions as a product of the inherent flow resistance (i.e. flow factor) of cross-section, and viscosity, velocity and a flow length, and viscosity change peculiar to thermosets is computed in sequence by using the viscosity equation (i.e. modifies a flow property), which allows an accurate flow in the 3-dimensional directions to be predicted.” Saeki [P.0014]. The viscosity equation is interpreted as modifying a flow property because, “viscosity is computed at the time t for each element using the viscosity equation...when the resin, passing through the space/obstacle separation model region, flows in, viscosity is newly computed using values necessary for viscosity computation” Saeki [P.0083])
Saeki fails to specifically disclose determining a flow factor of the first portion of the digital 3D model using one or more of a width of the regularly patterned holes, a depth of the regularly patterned holes, or a distance between the regularly patterned holes and using a discretizing mesh applied to the digital 3D model and representative of the component geometry of the component to be analyzed without the regularly patterned holes.
However, Shoemaker discloses determining a flow factor of the first portion of the digital 3D model using one or more of a width of the regularly patterned holes, a depth of the regularly patterned holes, or a distance between the regularly patterned holes (“To compare runners of different shapes, use the hydraulic diameter, which is an index of flow resistance. The higher the hydraulic diameter, the lower the flow resistance. Hydraulic diameter can be defined as:
D
h
=
4
A
P
(8.5) where
D
h
= hydraulic diameter,
A
= cross-section area,
P
= perimeter.” Shoemaker [Pg.144 Sec.8.5.2.3])
Shoemaker is analogous art as it relates to Computer Aided Engineering, specifically injection-molding design. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the design support method of Saeki to include determination of a flow factor (i.e. flow resistance), as Shoemake discloses, in order to properly analyze flow results in order to optimize the injection molding process.
Like Saeki, Shoemaker also fails to specifically disclose using a discretizing mesh applied to the digital 3D model and representative of the component geometry of the component to be analyzed without the regularly patterned holes.
However, Friedl discloses using a discretizing mesh applied to the digital 3D model and representative of the component geometry of the component to be analyzed without the regularly patterned holes (“The discretizing step may include the sub step of generating a finite element mesh based on the solid model by subdividing the model into a plurality of connected elements defined by a plurality of nodes. The mesh generating sub step may include generating an anisotropic mesh in thick and thin zones of the model” Friedl [Col.6 Ln.23])
Friedl is analogous art as it relates to modeling injection of a fluid in a mold cavity. Friedl teaches an invention that relates to “the field of three dimensional modeling of fluid flow in a cavity and, more specifically in one embodiment, to the modeling of an injection molding process for producing molded polymer components” Friedl [Col.1 Ln.6-10]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the Applicant’s effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of the Saeki-Shoemaker combination with the disclosed teachings of Friedl in order “to understand better the manufacturing process and integrate this knowledge into component design, early in the design phase” Friedl [Col.1 Ln.29-31].
Regarding claim 2, Saeki-Shoemaker-Friedl disclose the limitations of claim 1, Saeki further discloses, determining a thermal factor, the thermal factor indicating thermal characteristics of fluid flowing through the first portion with the regularly patterned holes, the thermal factor including a growth rate of a frozen layer. (“Then, using an equation of curing reaction 20 for thermosets and the temperature conditions, a degree of cure (i.e. growth rate of a frozen layer) and a heat generation rate at the time t are computed for each of the 3-dimensional solid elements (S308). The equation of curing reaction 20 may be expressed by equations 20 to 24” Saeki [P.0117-118]. The curing reaction equation is interpreted to include a thermal factor due to Applicant’s disclosure, “The thermal factor includes a growth rate of a frozen layer” Spec. [P.0007], and “The thermal factor is indicative of a thermal characteristic of fluid flowing” Spec. [P.0013])
Regarding claim 3, Saeki-Shoemaker-Friedl disclose the limitations of claim 1, Saeki further discloses, modifying the flow factor dynamically to account for a growth rate of a frozen layer. (“a dynamic equation is formed by expressing a pressure drop in the 3-dimensional directions as a product of the inherent flow resistance (i.e. flow factor) of cross-section, and viscosity, velocity and a flow length, and viscosity change peculiar to thermosets is computed in sequence by using the viscosity equation (i.e. modifies the flow factor), which allows an accurate flow in the 3-dimensional directions to be predicted.” Saeki [P.0014]. The viscosity equation is interpreted as modifying the flow factor because, “viscosity is computed at the time t for each element using the viscosity equation...when the resin, passing through the space/obstacle separation model region, flows in, viscosity is newly computed using values necessary for viscosity computation” Saeki [P.0083]. The viscosity equation is interpreted to dynamically modify the flow factor for the reasons given above. The viscosity equation is also interpreted to account for a growth rate of a frozen layer because “using the viscosity equation 18, the degree of cure (i.e. growth rate of a frozen layer) and the temperature conditions, the viscosity at the time t is computed for each element” Saeki [P.0120])
Regarding claim 4, Saeki-Shoemaker-Friedl disclose the limitations of claim 1, Saeki further discloses, wherein the regularly patterned holes are included in the digital 3D model, the method further comprising: removing the regularly patterned holes in the digital 3D model; (“The model creation portion 12 can use 3D-CAD, CAM, CAE and the like. The space/obstacle separation model creation portion 14 selects a place where a space and an obstacle (i.e. holes) can be separated (i.e. removal of the holes) from each other in the manner of the shape data,” Saeki [P.0049])
and creating the discretizing mesh, used to perform the numerical fluid simulation, after removing the regularly patterned holes in the digital 3D model. (“and sets the space directly to be a flow path, and divides it into predetermined meshes.” Saeki [P.0049])
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki et al. US Pub No. 2008/0234989 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Saeki”), in view of Jay, Shoemaker. "Moldflow design guide: a resource for plastics engineers." Hanser, Cop (2006) (hereinafter referred to as “Shoemaker”), in further view of Friedl et al. US Patent No. US 6816820 B1 (hereinafter referred to as “Friedl”), in further view of Tseng et al. US Patent No. 8571828 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “Tseng”).
Regarding claim 5, Saeki-Shoemaker-Friedl disclose the limitations of claim 1, Saeki further discloses, wherein the regularly patterned holes are omitted from the digital 3D model (“The model creation portion 12 can use 3D-CAD...The space / obstacle separation model creation portion 14 selects a place where a space and an obstacle (i.e. holes) can be separated (i.e. removal of the holes) from each other in the manner of the shape data,” Saeki [P.0049]), the method further comprising: obtaining flow characteristics of the first portion of the digital 3D model using analytical flow results or empirical flow data, wherein determining the flow factor is done based on the analytical flow results or the empirical flow data; (Obtaining flow characteristics/factor, as Saeki discloses in Claim 1, is interpreted as being determined using analytical results or empirical data because “The space/obstacle separation analysis portion, combining with conservation equations of mass, momentum and energy for describing movement of fluid and heat transfer, computes filling behavior of the thermosets, and the space/obstacle combination analysis portion, combining the viscosity equation with a conservation equation directed to a shape simplified as porous media, computes filling behavior of the thermosets, and numerical analysis is performed by using a finite difference method or a finite element method” Saeki [P.0013])
obtaining thermal characteristics of the first portion of the digital 3D model using analytical thermal results or empirical thermal data; determining a thermal factor based on the analytical thermal results or the empirical thermal data; (Obtaining thermal characteristics/factor, as Saeki discloses in Claim 2, is interpreted as being determined using analytical thermal results or empirical thermal data because “The space/obstacle separation analysis portion, combining with conservation equations of mass, momentum and energy for describing movement of fluid and heat transfer, computes filling behavior of the thermosets, and the space/obstacle combination analysis portion, combining the viscosity equation with a conservation equation directed to a shape simplified as porous media, computes filling behavior of the thermosets, and numerical analysis is performed by using a finite difference method or a finite element method” Saeki [P.0013])
Saeki-Shoemaker-Friedl fail to specifically disclose obtaining fiber orientation characteristics of the first portion of the model using analytical results or empirical fiber orientation data for fibers suspended in the fluid flow; and determining a fiber orientation factor based on the analytical results or the empirical fiber orientation data.
However, the analogous art of Tseng discloses, obtaining fiber orientation characteristics of the first portion of the digital 3D model using analytical results or empirical fiber orientation data for fibers suspended in the fluid flow; and determining a fiber orientation factor based on the analytical results or the empirical fiber orientation data. (“the present invention provides a method for determining orientation of fibers in a fluid having polymer chains, the fibers in the fluid including a transitional movement and a rotatory movement, the method being characterized in that the determining of the orientation of the fibers is performed by taking into consideration a steric barrier effect on a rotary movement of the fibers.” Tseng [Col.3-4 Ln.65-4]. Determination of fiber orientation is interpreted to be based on analytical results because “Thus, the orientation analyzer is able to determine an acceptable orientation tensor. It is important that the constitutive equation for fibers obtains the orientation tensor to calculate the fiber suspension stress tensor” Tseng [Col.17 Ln.53-56])
Tseng is analogous art as it relates to injection molding fluid modeling. Tseng [Col.1 Ln.8-9] teaches “a method and a computer readable media for determining orientation of fibers in a fluid”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the Applicant’s effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Saeki-Shoemaker-Friedl to incorporate a fiber orientation factor, as disclosed in Tseng, because in order to “design products effectively, the influence of flow-induced fiber orientation distribution on the properties of the finished part must be considered” Tseng [Col.1 Ln.41-44].
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki et al. US Pub No. 2008/0234989 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Saeki”) in view of Jay, Shoemaker. "Moldflow design guide: a resource for plastics engineers." Hanser, Cop (2006) (hereinafter referred to as “Shoemaker”), in further view of Friedl et al. US Patent No. US 6816820 B1 (hereinafter referred to as “Friedl”), and in further view of Lai, Jiing-Yih, Pei-Pu Song, Chia-Hsiang Hsu, and Yao-Chen Tsai. "Recognition and Simplification of Holes in CAD Models of an Injection Mold for Mold Flow Analysis" Computer-Aided Design & Applications 17, no. 1 (2020) (hereinafter referred to as “Lai”)
Regarding claim 6, Saeki-Shoemaker-Friedl disclose the limitations of claim 1, Saeki further discloses, , wherein determining the flow factor comprises obtaining flow characteristics using analytical results or empirical data. (Obtaining flow characteristics/factor, as Saeki discloses in Claim 1, is interpreted as being determined using analytical results or empirical data because “The space / obstacle separation analysis portion, combining with conservation equations of mass, momentum and energy for describing movement of fluid and heat transfer, computes filling behavior of the thermosets, and the space/obstacle combination analysis portion, combining the viscosity equation with a conservation equation directed to a shape simplified as porous media, computes filling behavior of the thermosets, and numerical analysis is performed by using a finite difference method or a finite element method” Saeki [P.0013])
However, Saeki-Shoemaker-Friedl fail to specifically disclose wherein the regularly patterned holes comprise blind holes.
On the other hand, analogous art of Lai discloses wherein the regularly patterned holes comprise blind holes (“In this study, we focus on the recognition of a series (i.e. regularly patterned) of holes passing across different CAD models and arrange them in sequence. Holes that are used in mold flow analyses, such as core, cavity, runner system, and cooling channels, are identified and preserved... To aid the analysis, holes can be classified into several types... If the hole breaks through the surface of the part it is called a “through hole”, otherwise it is called a “blind hole”.” Lai [Pg.90 P.2-3])
Lai is analogous art as it relates to injection molding fluid analysis. Lai [Pg.88 Abstract] teaches “The purpose of this study is to recognize and simplify unnecessary holes in an injection mold for mold flow analyses.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the Applicant’s effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Saeki-Shoemaker-Friedl to incorporate blind holes, as Lai teaches, in order “to recognize and simplify unnecessary holes in an injection mold for mold flow analyses” Lai [Pg.88 Abstract].
Regarding claim 7, Saeki-Shoemaker-Friedl disclose the limitations of claim 1, Saeki further discloses, wherein determining the flow factor comprises obtaining flow characteristics using analytical results or empirical data (Obtaining flow characteristics, as Saeki discloses in Claim 1, is interpreted as being determined using analytical results or empirical data because “The space/obstacle separation analysis portion, combining with conservation equations of mass, momentum and energy for describing movement of fluid and heat transfer, computes filling behavior of the thermosets, and the space/obstacle combination analysis portion, combining the viscosity equation with a conservation equation directed to a shape simplified as porous media, computes filling behavior of the thermosets, and numerical analysis is performed by using a finite difference method or a finite element method” Saeki [P.0013]).
However, Saeki-Shoemaker-Friedl fail to specifically disclose wherein the regularly patterned holes comprise a varied profile hole, wherein the varied profile hole defines a varied cross-sectional shape across a depth of the hole.
On the other hand, analogous art of Lai discloses wherein the regularly patterned holes comprise a varied profile hole, wherein the varied profile hole defines a varied cross-sectional shape across a depth of the hole (“To aid the analysis, holes can be classified into several types. A single hole exists alone, such as the cases in Figures 1(a) and (b). Several holes that connect to each other can form different hole structures. If all holes connect to each other in series, it is called a ladder hole, such as the cases in Figures 1(c) and (d), which contain two and three holes connected in series, respectively. If the hole breaks through the surface of the part it is called a “through hole”, otherwise it is called a “blind hole”.” Lai [Pg.90 P.2-3]. Examiner interprets “through” and “blind” holes as varied profile holes which define a varied cross-sectional shape across a depth due to Applicant’s disclosure “a varied profile hole can be a blind-hole or a through-hole” Spec [P.0040])
PNG
media_image1.png
507
926
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
Applicant’s effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined teachings of Saeki-Shoemaker-Friedl to incorporate varied profile holes, as Lai teaches, in order to improve the accuracy of the [flow] analysis” Lai [Pg.88 Abstract].
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki et al. US Pub No. 2008/0234989 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Saeki”), in view of Friedl et al. US Patent No. US 6816820 B1 (hereinafter referred to as “Friedl”).
Regarding claim 8, Saeki discloses, one or more processors; and a computer-readable medium storing instructions executable by the one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to: (“the design support system configured as described above can be provided in a manner that, in a general computer system including, for example as shown in FIG. 2, a CPU 21, a memory 22... the CPU 21 executes a predetermined program loaded into the memory 22 (a 3D-CAD, CAM or CAE program for implementing the model creation portion 12, and a 3-dimensional flow analysis program for implementing the thermosets flow analysis portion 13)” Saeki [P.0056])
obtain a digital 3D model of a component to be analyzed, (“The model creation portion includes: a space/obstacle combination model creation portion for creating a space/obstacle combination model formed of a 3-dimensional solid element” Saeki [P.0013])
the component including regularly patterned holes; (“The space/obstacle combination analysis portion 17 is directed to a flow path shape in which holes having the same cross-sectional shape are regularly provided in the 3-dimensional directions Saeki [P.0054])
identify a first portion of the digital 3D model, the first portion of the digital 3D model corresponding to a first component portion including the regularly patterned holes; (“The space/obstacle separation model creation portion 14 selects a place where a space and an obstacle (i.e. regularly patterned holes) can be separated from each other (i.e. identifies a first portion of the model) in the manner of the shape data, and sets the space directly to be a flow path” Saeki [P.0049]. Obstacle is interpreted to include regularly patterned holes because “The space/obstacle combination model creation portion 15 specifies a place where an obstacle regularly arranged in an analysis object region... That is, each specified place is replaced with porous media” [P.0050], and “The space/obstacle combination analysis portion 17 is directed to a flow path shape in which holes having the same cross-sectional shape are regularly provided in the 3-dimensional directions, respectively, as porous media” Saeki [P.0054])
identify a second portion of the 3D digital model, the second portion of the digital 3D model including parts of the digital 3D model corresponding to a second component portion lacking the regularly patterned holes; (“The space / obstacle separation model creation portion 14 selects a place where a space and an obstacle (i.e. regularly patterned holes) can be separated from each other (i.e. identifies a second portion of the model) in the manner of the shape data, and sets the space directly to be a flow path” Saeki [P.0049]. Obstacle is interpreted to include regularly patterned holes because “The space/obstacle combination model creation portion 15 specifies a place where an obstacle regularly arranged in an analysis object region... That is, each specified place is replaced with porous media” [P.0050], and “The space/obstacle combination analysis portion 17 is directed to a flow path shape in which holes having the same cross-sectional shape are regularly provided in the 3-dimensional directions, respectively, as porous media” Saeki [P.0054])
the thermal factor indicating a thermal characteristic of fluid flowing through the first portion of the digital 3D model with the regularly patterned holes, the thermal factor comprising a growth rate of a frozen layer; (“Then, using an equation of curing reaction 20 for thermosets and the temperature conditions, a degree of cure (i.e. growth rate of a frozen layer) and a heat generation rate at the time t are computed for each of the 3-dimensional solid elements (S308). The equation of curing reaction 20 may be expressed by equations 20 to 24” Saeki [P.0117-118]. The curing reaction equation is interpreted to include a thermal factor due to Applicant’s disclosure, “The thermal factor includes a growth rate of a frozen layer” Spec. [P.0007], and “The thermal factor is indicative of a thermal characteristic of fluid flowing” Spec. [P.0013])
and perform a numerical fluid simulation (“According to the present
invention, the process of encapsulating, with thermosets, a product including both of a place in which obstacles having many, very narrow gaps are regularly arranged, and a wide flow path can be quickly and accurately simulated in flow-simulation” Saeki [P.0016]), , wherein performance of the numerical fluid simulation comprises modifying a thermal property of the numerical fluid simulation to account for the regularly patterned holes in the first portion of the digital 3D model based at least in part on the thermal factor, (Given Applicant’s disclosure, “in implementations where plastic mold injection is being simulated [ ] thermal properties (density and heat capacity) of the molding material are modified” [Spec. P.0046-47], the Examiner interprets “modifying a thermal property” as an inherent property of the material used in the simulation, i.e. an initial input into the simulation. Saeki discloses “a specific example of the space/obstacle separation analysis portion 16 in the thermosets flow analysis portion 13 will be described. The space/obstacle separation analysis portion 16 sets an initial time to a time
t
. Then, using a viscosity equation 18 for thermosets, and the temperature and time conditions, viscosity at a time t is computed for each of the 3-dimensional solid elements (S208) [ ] In addition, an isothermal viscosity equation may be expressed by the following equations 1 to 4 [ ] Where, Ƞ is viscosity,
t
is time,
T
is temperature, Ƞ0 is an initial viscosity,
t
0 is a gel time,
C
is a coefficient of determining viscosity rise, and a, b, d, e, f and g are coefficients inherent to material. FIG. 4 shows isothermal characteristics of this viscosity equation. At each temperature
T
, viscosity turns into the initial viscosity at a time
t
, and the viscosity increases as curing reaction advances with time” Saeki [P.0063-65]. Note: space/obstacle is interpreted as regularly patterned holes because “The space/obstacle combination analysis portion 17 is directed to a flow path shape in which holes having the same cross-sectional shape are regularly provided in the 3-dimensional directions” Saeki [P.0054])
the numerical fluid simulation used to determine an injection flow rate or an injection location of an injection mold. (“The thermosets flow analysis (i.e. numerical fluid simulation) portion 13 receives properties of thermosets (i.e. modifying a thermal property) necessary for 3-dimensional flow analysis from a user through the GUI portion 11 (S301) [ ] the properties are coefficients in the equation of curing reaction 19 and the viscosity equation described below, specific heat, density, thermal conductivity and the like.” Saeki [P.0113]. The flow analysis is interpreted to be based at least in part on the numerical fluid simulation used to determine an injection flow rate because, “the thermosets flow analysis portion 13 receives various conditions for 3-dimensional flow analysis from the user through the GUI portion 11 (boundary conditions, analysis conditions and initial conditions) (S302). The various conditions include an initial temperature, an inflow velocity (i.e. injection flow rate), a mold temperature, shape data of an injection portion and conditions of end of analysis (upper limits of a degree of cure, a flow time, viscosity and pressure, and the like)” Saeki [P.0114])
Saeki fails to specifically disclose determine a thermal factor of the first portion of the digital 3D model using a volume fraction of the first portion including the regularly patterned holes and/or a shape factor of the regularly patterned holes, using a discretizing mesh applied to the digital 3D model and representative of the component geometry of the component to be analyzed without the regularly patterned holes.
However, Friedl discloses determine a thermal factor of the first portion of the digital 3D model using a volume fraction of the first portion including the regularly patterned holes (see Saeki) and/or a shape factor of the regularly patterned holes, (“The volume fraction of freeze in the element is used to calculate a volume fraction of freeze within each nodal volume. In this particular context, "freeze" is the portion of the volume below Ts and nodal volume refers only to that part within the-current element.” Friedl [Col.25 Ln.65])
using a discretizing mesh applied to the digital 3D model and representative of the component geometry of the component to be analyzed without the regularly patterned holes (“The discretizing step may include the sub step of generating a finite element mesh based on the solid model by subdividing the model into a plurality of connected elements defined by a plurality of nodes. The mesh generating sub step may include generating an anisotropic mesh in thick and thin zones of the model” Friedl [Col.6 Ln.23])
Friedl is analogous art as it relates to modeling injection of a fluid in a mold cavity. Friedl teaches an invention that relates to “the field of three dimensional modeling of fluid flow in a cavity and, more specifically in one embodiment, to the modeling of an injection molding process for producing molded polymer components” Friedl [Col.1 Ln.6-10]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the Applicant’s effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Saeki with the disclosed teachings of Friedl in order “to understand better the manufacturing process and integrate this knowledge into component design, early in the design phase” Friedl [Col.1 Ln.29-31].
Regarding Claim 9, Saeki-Friedl discloses the system of Claim 8, Saeki further discloses, wherein the regularly patterned holes are included in the digital 3D model, wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to: remove the regularly patterned holes in the digital 3D model; (“The model creation portion 12 can use 3D-CAD, CAM, CAE and the like. The space/obstacle separation model creation portion 14 selects a place where a space and an obstacle (i.e. holes) can be separated (i.e. removal of the holes) from each other in the manner of the shape data,” Saeki [P.0049])
and create the discretizing mesh after removal of the regularly patterned holes in the digital 3D model (“and sets the space directly to be a flow path, and divides it into predetermined meshes.” Saeki [P.0049])
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki et al. US Pub No. 2008/0234989 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Saeki”), in view of Friedl et al. US Patent No. US 6816820 B1 (hereinafter referred to as “Friedl”), in further view of Tseng et al. US Patent No. 8571828 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “Tseng”).
Regarding Claim 10, Saeki-Friedl disclose the system of Claim 8. Saeki further discloses wherein the regularly patterned holes are omitted from the digital 3D model, (“The model creation portion 12 can use 3D-CAD...The space / obstacle separation model creation portion 14 selects a place where a space and an obstacle (i.e. holes) can be separated (i.e. removal of the holes) from each other in the manner of the shape data,” Saeki [P.0049])
wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to: obtain flow characteristics of the first portion of the digital 3D model using analytical flow results or empirical flow data; determine a flow factor of the first portion of the digital 3D model, the flow factor indicating flow characteristics of fluid flowing through the first portion of the digital 3D model with the regularly patterned holes, wherein determination of the flow factor is done based on the analytical flow results or the empirical flow data; (Obtaining flow characteristics / factor, as Saeki discloses in Claim 8, is interpreted as being determined using analytical results or empirical data because “The space/obstacle separation analysis portion, combining with conservation equations of mass, momentum and energy for describing movement of fluid and heat transfer, computes filling behavior of the thermosets, and the space/obstacle combination analysis portion, combining the viscosity equation with a conservation equation directed to a shape simplified as porous media, computes filling behavior of the thermosets, and numerical analysis is performed by using a finite difference method or a finite element method” Saeki [P.0013])
obtain thermal characteristics of the first portion of the digital 3D model using analytical thermal results or empirical thermal data, wherein determination of the thermal factor is done based on the analytical thermal results or empirical thermal data; (Obtaining thermal characteristics/factor, as Saeki discloses in Claim 2, is interpreted as being determined using analytical thermal results or empirical thermal data because “The space/obstacle separation analysis portion, combining with conservation equations of mass, momentum and energy for describing movement of fluid and heat transfer, computes filling behavior of the thermosets, and the space / obstacle combination analysis portion, combining the viscosity equation with a conservation equation directed to a shape simplified as porous media, computes filling behavior of the thermosets, and numerical analysis is performed by using a finite difference method or a finite element method” Saeki [P.0013])
Saeki-Friedl fail to specifically disclose obtain fiber orientation characteristics of the first portion of the digital 3D model using analytical results or empirical fiber orientation data for fibers suspended in the fluid flow; and determine a fiber orientation factor based on the analytical results or the empirical fiber orientation data.
However, the analogous art of Tseng discloses, obtain fiber orientation characteristics of the first portion of the digital 3D model using analytical results or empirical fiber orientation data for fibers suspended in the fluid flow; and determine a fiber orientation factor based on the analytical results or the empirical fiber orientation data. (“the present invention provides a method for determining orientation of fibers in a fluid having polymer chains, the fibers in the fluid including a transitional movement and a rotatory movement, the method being characterized in that the determining of the orientation of the fibers is performed by taking into consideration a steric barrier effect on a rotary movement of the fibers.” Tseng [Col.3-4 Ln.65-4]. Determination of fiber orientation is interpreted to be based on analytical results because “Thus, the orientation analyzer is able to determine an acceptable orientation tensor. It is important that the constitutive equation for fibers obtains the orientation tensor to calculate the fiber suspension stress tensor” Tseng [Col.17 Ln.53-56])
Tseng is analogous art as it relates to injection molding fluid modeling. Tseng [Col.1 Ln.8-9] teaches “a method and a computer readable media for determining orientation of fibers in a fluid”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the Applicant’s effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Saeki-Friedl to incorporate a fiber orientation factor, as disclosed in Tseng, because in order to “design products effectively, the influence of flow-induced fiber orientation distribution on the properties of the finished part must be considered” Tseng [Col.1 Ln.41-44].
Regarding Claim 11, Saeki-Friedl-Tseng disclose the system of claim 10, Saeki further discloses wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to: modify the flow factor dynamically to account for the growth rate of the frozen layer. (“a dynamic equation is formed by expressing a pressure drop in the 3-dimensional directions as a product of the inherent flow resistance (i.e. flow factor) of cross-section, and viscosity, velocity and a flow length, and viscosity change peculiar to thermosets is computed in sequence by using the viscosity equation (i.e. modifies the flow factor), which allows an accurate flow in the 3-dimensional directions to be predicted.” Saeki [P.0014]. The viscosity equation is interpreted as modifying the flow factor because, “viscosity is computed at the time t for each element using the viscosity equation...when the resin, passing through the space/obstacle separation model region, flows in, viscosity is newly computed using values necessary for viscosity computation” Saeki [P.0083]. The viscosity equation is interpreted to dynamically modify the flow factor for the reasons given above. The viscosity equation is also interpreted to account for a growth rate of a frozen layer because “using the viscosity equation 18, the degree of cure (i.e. growth rate of a frozen layer) and the temperature conditions, the viscosity at the time t is computed for each element” Saeki [P.0120])
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki et al. US Pub No. 2008/0234989 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Saeki”), in view of Friedl et al. US Patent No. US 6816820 B1 (hereinafter referred to as “Friedl”), in further view of Tseng et al. US Patent No. 8571828 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “Tseng”), and in further view of Lai, Jiing-Yih, Pei-Pu Song, Chia-Hsiang Hsu, and Yao-Chen Tsai. "Recognition and Simplification of Holes in CAD Models of an Injection Mold for Mold Flow Analysis" Computer-Aided Design & Applications 17, no. 1 (2020) (hereinafter referred to as “Lai”).
Regarding Claim 12, Saeki-Friedl-Tseng disclose the system of Claim 10, Saeki further discloses, , wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processor to: determine the flow factor by obtaining flow characteristics using analytical results or empirical data. (Obtaining flow characteristics/factor, as Saeki discloses in Claim 1, is interpreted as being determined using analytical results or empirical data because “The space / obstacle separation analysis portion, combining with conservation equations of mass, momentum and energy for describing movement of fluid and heat transfer, computes filling behavior of the thermosets, and the space/obstacle combination analysis portion, combining the viscosity equation with a conservation equation directed to a shape simplified as porous media, computes filling behavior of the thermosets, and numerical analysis is performed by using a finite difference method or a finite element method” Saeki [P.0013])
However, the Saeki-Friedl-Tseng combination fails to specifically disclose wherein the regularly patterned holes comprise blind holes.
On the other hand, analogous art of Lai discloses wherein the regularly patterned holes comprise blind holes (“In this study, we focus on the recognition of a series (i.e. regularly patterned) of holes passing across different CAD models and arrange them in sequence. Holes that are used in mold flow analyses, such as core, cavity, runner system, and cooling channels, are identified and preserved... To aid the analysis, holes can be classified into several types... If the hole breaks through the surface of the part it is called a “through hole”, otherwise it is called a “blind hole”.” Lai [Pg.90 P.2-3])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
Applicant’s effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined teachings of Saeki-Friedl-Tseng to incorporate blind holes, as Lai teaches, in order “to recognize and simplify unnecessary holes in an injection mold for mold flow analyses” Lai [Pg.88 Abstract].
Regarding Claim 13, Saeki-Friedl-Tseng disclose the system of Claim 10, Saeki further discloses, wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processor to: determine the flow factor by obtaining flow characteristics using analytical results or empirical data. (Obtaining flow characteristics, as Saeki discloses in Claim 1, is interpreted as being determined using analytical results or empirical data because “The space/obstacle separation analysis portion, combining with conservation equations of mass, momentum and energy for describing movement of fluid and heat transfer, computes filling behavior of the thermosets, and the space/obstacle combination analysis portion, combining the viscosity equation with a conservation equation directed to a shape simplified as porous media, computes filling behavior of the thermosets, and numerical analysis is performed by using a finite difference method or a finite element method” Saeki [P.0013]).
However, Saeki-Friedl-Tseng fail to specifically disclose wherein the regularly patterned holes comprise a varied profile hole that defines a varied cross-sectional shape across a depth of the hole.
On the other hand, analogous art of Lai discloses wherein the regularly patterned holes comprise a varied profile hole that defines a varied cross-sectional shape across a depth of the hole (“In this study, we focus on the recognition of a series (i.e. regularly patterned) of holes passing across different CAD models and arrange them in sequence. Holes that are used in mold flow analyses, such as core, cavity, runner system, and cooling channels, are identified and preserved... To aid the analysis, holes can be classified into several types... If all holes connect to each other in series, it is called a ladder hole, such as the cases in Figures 1(c) and (d) (see below), which contain two and three holes connected in series, respectively” Lai [Pg.90 P.2-3])
PNG
media_image1.png
507
926
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
Applicant’s effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined teachings of Saeki-Friedl-Tseng to consider varied profile holes, as Lai teaches, since in order “to improve the accuracy of the analysis, the real, non-simplified model base must be considered”. Lai [Pg.88 Abstract].
Claims 14-16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki et al. US Pub No. 2008/0234989 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Saeki”), in view of Tseng et al. US Patent No. 8571828 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “Tseng”), in further view of Friedl et al. US Patent No. US 6816820 B1 (hereinafter referred to as “Friedl”).
Regarding claim 14, Saeki discloses, A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions executable by one or more processors to perform operations comprising: (“The design support system configured as described above can be provided in a manner that, in a general computer system including, for example as shown in FIG. 2, a CPU 21, a memory 22, an external memory unit 23 such as an HDD, a reader 25 for reading out information from a portable storage medium 24 such as a CD-ROM or a DVD-ROM... the CPU 21 executes a predetermined program loaded into the memory 22 (a 3D-CAD, CAM or CAE program for implementing the model creation portion 12, and a 3-dimensional flow analysis program for implementing the thermosets flow analysis portion 13)” Saeki [P.0056])
obtaining a digital 3D model of a component to be analyzed, (“The model creation portion includes: a space/obstacle combination model creation portion for creating a space/obstacle combination model formed of a 3-dimensional solid element” Saeki [P.0013])
the component including regularly patterned holes; (“The space/obstacle combination analysis portion 17 is directed to a flow path shape in which holes having the same cross-sectional shape are regularly provided in the 3-dimensional directions” Saeki [P.0054])
identifying a first portion of the digital 3D model, the first portion of the digital 3D model corresponding to a first component portion including the regularly patterned holes; (“The space/obstacle separation model creation portion 14 selects a place where a space and an obstacle (i.e. regularly patterned holes) can be separated from each other (i.e. identifies a first portion of the model) in the manner of the shape data, and sets the space directly to be a flow path” Saeki [P.0049]. Obstacle is interpreted to include regularly patterned holes because “The space/obstacle combination model creation portion 15 specifies a place where an obstacle regularly arranged in an analysis object region... That is, each specified place is replaced with porous media” [P.0050], and “The space/obstacle combination analysis portion 17 is directed to a flow path shape in which holes having the same cross-sectional shape are regularly provided in the 3-dimensional directions, respectively, as porous media” Saeki [P.0054])
identifying a second portion of the digital 3D model, the second portion of the digital 3D model including parts of the digital 3D model corresponding to a second component portion lacking the regularly patterned holes; (“The space/obstacle separation model creation portion 14 selects a place where a space and an obstacle (i.e. regularly patterned holes) can be separated from each other (i.e. identifies a second portion of the model) in the manner of the shape data, and sets the space directly to be a flow path” Saeki [P.0049]. Obstacle is interpreted to include regularly patterned holes because “The space/obstacle combination model creation portion 15 specifies a place where an obstacle regularly arranged in an analysis object region... That is, each specified place is replaced with porous media” [P.0050], and “The space/obstacle combination analysis portion 17 is directed to a flow path shape in which holes having the same cross-sectional shape are regularly provided in the 3-dimensional directions, respectively, as porous media” Saeki [P.0054])
and performing a numerical fluid simulation (“According to the present
invention, the process of encapsulating, with thermosets, a product including both of a place in which obstacles having many, very narrow gaps are regularly arranged, and a wide flow path can be quickly and accurately simulated in flow-simulation” Saeki [P.0016]),
Saeki fails to specifically disclose determining a fiber orientation factor using a volume fraction of the first portion of the digital 3D model including the regularly patterned holes, the fiber orientation factor indicating fiber orientation characteristics indicative of fiber orientation properties of fibers suspended within a fluid flowing through the first portion of the digital 3D model with the regularly patterned holes, using a discretizing mesh applied to the digital 3D model and representative of the component geometry of the component to be analyzed without the regularly patterned holes, and the performing comprising modifying a fiber orientation property of the numerical fluid simulation to account for the regularly patterned holes in the first portion of the digital 3D model based at least in part on the fiber orientation factor.
However, the analogous art of Tseng discloses, determining a fiber orientation factor using a volume fraction of the first portion of the digital 3D model including the regularly patterned holes, the fiber orientation factor indicating fiber orientation characteristics indicative of fiber orientation properties of fibers suspended within a fluid flowing through the first portion of the digital 3D model with the regularly patterned holes (“the present invention provides a method for determining orientation of fibers in a fluid having polymer chains, the fibers in the fluid including a transitional movement and a rotatory movement, the method being characterized in that the determining of the orientation of the fibers is performed by taking into consideration a steric barrier effect on a rotary movement of the fibers.” Tseng [Col.3-4 Ln.65-4]. Determining orientation of fibers in a fluid having polymer chains is interpreted to use a volume fraction because “A high viscosity silicone oil of polydimethylsiloxane is selected as the suspending medium. Various fibers are immersed in the silicone oil. Nylon, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), and Vectran® fibers are referred to as NS, PS, and VS. The flexibility of a fiber can be quantified by the Young modulus E
γ
. The values of E
γ
for NS, PS, and VS are 2, 26, and 76 GPa, respectively. The aspect ratio of these fibers is 70 at the same value. The volume fraction is
ϕ
=0.03” Tseng [Col.21 Ln.39]) and
the performing comprising modifying a fiber orientation property of the numerical fluid simulation to account for the regularly patterned holes in the first portion of the digital 3D model based at least in part on the fiber orientation factor (“considering the interaction between the fibers and the fluid affecting the fiber orientation... As this interaction exists, intrinsic changes in configuration of the polymer chain structure (i.e. modified fiber orientation property) induce incidental changes in fiber orientation.” Tseng [Col.6 Ln.45-50])
Saeki and Tseng are analogous art as they both relate to injection molding fluid modeling. Saeki [P.0003] teaches “a technique for supporting design of a resin molded article using thermosets”, and Tseng [Col.1 Ln.8-9] teaches “a method and a computer readable media for determining orientation of fibers in a fluid”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the Applicant’s effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Saeki to incorporate a fiber orientation factor, as disclosed by Tseng, because in order to “design products effectively, the influence of flow-induced fiber orientation distribution on the properties of the finished part must be considered” Tseng [Col.1 Ln.41-44].
Like Saeki, Tseng also fails to specifically disclose using a discretizing mesh applied to the digital 3D model and representative of the component geometry of the component to be analyzed without the regularly patterned holes.
However, Friedl discloses using a discretizing mesh applied to the digital 3D model and representative of the component geometry of the component to be analyzed without the regularly patterned holes (“The discretizing step may include the sub step of generating a finite element mesh based on the solid model by subdividing the model into a plurality of connected elements defined by a plurality of nodes. The mesh generating sub step may include generating an anisotropic mesh in thick and thin zones of the model” Friedl [Col.6 Ln.23])
Friedl is analogous art as it relates to modeling injection of a fluid in a mold cavity. Friedl teaches an invention that relates to “the field of three dimensional modeling of fluid flow in a cavity and, more specifically in one embodiment, to the modeling of an injection molding process for producing molded polymer components” Friedl [Col.1 Ln.6-10]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the Applicant’s effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of the Saeki-Tseng combination with the disclosed teachings of Friedl in order “to understand better the manufacturing process and integrate this knowledge into component design, early in the design phase” Friedl [Col.1 Ln.29-31].
Regarding claim 15, Saeki-Tseng-Friedl disclose the CRM of Claim 14, Saeki further discloses, determining a flow factor of the first portion, the flow factor indicating flow characteristics of fluid flowing through the first portion with the regularly patterned holes; (“the space/obstacle combination model portion in which narrow gaps are regularly arranged ... in this portion, an inherent flow resistance (i.e. flow factor) of cross-section is independently set in 3-dimensional directions” Saeki [P.0014]. Flow resistance is interpreted to mean flow factor due to Applicant’s disclosure, “Flow Resistance Factor is the flow factor” Spec. [P.0043])
and determining a thermal factor of the first portion, the thermal factor indicating thermal characteristic of fluid flowing through the first portion with the regularly patterned holes, the thermal factor comprising a growth rate of a frozen layer. (“Then, using an equation of curing reaction 20 for thermosets and the temperature conditions, a degree of cure (i.e. growth rate of a frozen layer) and a heat generation rate at the time t are computed for each of the 3-dimensional solid elements (S308). The equation of curing reaction 20 may be expressed by equations 20 to 24” Saeki [P.0117-118]. The curing reaction equation is interpreted to include a thermal factor due to Applicant’s disclosure, “The thermal factor includes a growth rate of a frozen layer” Spec. [P.0007], and “The thermal factor is indicative of a thermal characteristic of fluid flowing” Spec. [P.0013])
Regarding Claim 16, Saeki-Tseng-Friedl disclose the CRM of Claim 15. Saeki further discloses, wherein the operations further comprise: modifying the flow factor dynamically to account for the growth rate of the frozen layer. (“a dynamic equation is formed by expressing a pressure drop in the 3-dimensional directions as a product of the inherent flow resistance (i.e. flow factor) of cross-section, and viscosity, velocity and a flow length, and viscosity change peculiar to thermosets is computed in sequence by using the viscosity equation (i.e. modifies the flow factor), which allows an accurate flow in the 3-dimensional directions to be predicted.” Saeki [P.0014]. The viscosity equation is interpreted as modifying the flow factor because, “viscosity is computed at the time t for each element using the viscosity equation...when the resin, passing through the space/obstacle separation model region, flows in, viscosity is newly computed using values necessary for viscosity computation” Saeki [P.0083]. The viscosity equation is interpreted to dynamically modify the flow factor for the reasons given above. The viscosity equation is also interpreted to account for a growth rate of a frozen layer because “using the viscosity equation 18, the degree of cure (i.e. growth rate of a frozen layer) and the temperature conditions, the viscosity at the time t is computed for each element” Saeki [P.0120])
Regarding claim 19, Saeki-Tseng-Friedl disclose the CRM of Claim 15, although Saeki fails to specifically disclose the limitations of claim 19. However, Friedl further discloses, determining an injection rate (See Friedl FIG.2 below. “These boundary conditions, by way of example, may include... fluid injection volumetric flow rate” Friedl [Col.10 Ln.55-59]), with iterative calculations (“If, however, the user determines that the results of the simulation in step 70 are unacceptable or less than optimal, the user has the option in step 90 of modifying one or more of the boundary conditions and/or discretization of the model solution domain and thereafter repeating simulation steps 50 through 70 iteratively” Friedl [Col.11 Ln.57-62]) using the mesh (“The model solution domain is then defined and discretized by any of a variety of methods, such as by finite element analysis in which a finite element model is produced by generating a finite element mesh based on the solid model in step 30” Friedl [Col.10 Ln.46-50]), based in part on the determined flow factor (“Once the boundary conditions have been entered, the computer 10 executes the instructions in accordance with the simulation model to first calculate or solve relevant filling phase process variables for the nodes in step 50... such variables can include... viscosity” Friedl [Col.10 Ln.66]. Viscosity is interpreted to include a flow factor because, “The expression for effective viscosity was derived by determining the parallel flow resistance” Friedl [Col.26 Ln.12-13]. Flow resistance is interpreted to mean flow factor due to Applicant’s disclosure, “Flow Resistance Factor is the flow factor” Spec. [P.0014]) and the determined thermal factor; (“These boundary conditions, by way of example, may include ... mold temperature” Friedl [Col.1 Ln.55-61]. Mold temperature is interpreted to mean thermal factor due to Applicant’s disclosure “The thermal factor includes a growth rate of a frozen layer” Spec. [P.0007] along with Friedl’s disclosure “the temperature of the mold at the cavity surface or wall is maintained at a temperature below the melting temperature of the material to be injected. As the material flows into the cavity, the liquid material forms a solidified layer along the cavity wall. This layer may be referred to as the frozen layer” Friedl [Col.2 Ln.10-15])
determining an injection temperature (See Friedl FIG.2 below. “These boundary conditions, by way of example, may include... fluid injection temperature” Friedl [Col.10 Ln.55-59]), with iterative calculations (“If, however, the user determines that the results of the simulation in step 70 are unacceptable or less than optimal, the user has the option in step 90 of modifying one or more of the boundary conditions and/or discretization of the model solution domain and thereafter repeating simulation steps 50 through 70 iteratively” Friedl [Col.11 Ln.57-62]) using the mesh (“The model solution domain is then defined and discretized by any of a variety of methods, such as by finite element analysis in which a finite element model is produced by generating a finite element mesh based on the solid model in step 30” Friedl [Col.10 Ln.46-50]), based in part on the determined flow factor (“Once the boundary conditions have been entered, the computer 10 executes the instructions in accordance with the simulation model to first calculate or solve relevant filling phase process variables for the nodes in step 50... such variables can include... viscosity” Friedl [Col.10 Ln.66]. Viscosity is interpreted to include a flow factor because, “The expression for effective viscosity was derived by determining the parallel flow resistance” Friedl [Col.26 Ln.12-13]. Flow resistance is interpreted to mean flow factor due to Applicant’s disclosure, “Flow Resistance Factor is the flow factor” Spec. [P.0014]) and the determined thermal factor; (“These boundary conditions, by way of example, may include ... mold temperature” Friedl [Col.1 Ln.55-61]. Mold temperature is interpreted to mean thermal factor due to Applicant’s disclosure “The thermal factor includes a growth rate of a frozen layer” Spec. [P.0007] along with Friedl’s disclosure “the temperature of the mold at the cavity surface or wall is maintained at a temperature below the melting temperature of the material to be injected. As the material flows into the cavity, the liquid material forms a solidified layer along the cavity wall. This layer may be referred to as the frozen layer” Friedl [Col.2 Ln.10-15])
and determining an injection location (See Friedl FIG.2 below. “These boundary conditions, by way of example, may include... fluid injection location” Friedl [Col.10 Ln.55-59]), with iterative calculations (“If, however, the user determines that the results of the simulation in step 70 are unacceptable or less than optimal, the user has the option in step 90 of modifying one or more of the boundary conditions and/or discretization of the model solution domain and thereafter repeating simulation steps 50 through 70 iteratively” Friedl [Col.11 Ln.57-62]) using the mesh (“The model solution domain is then defined and discretized by any of a variety of methods, such as by finite element analysis in which a finite element model is produced by generating a finite element mesh based on the solid model in step 30” Friedl [Col.10 Ln.46-50]), based in part on the determined injection rate and injection temperature. “These boundary conditions, by way of example, may include... fluid injection temperature... fluid injection volumetric flow rate” Friedl [Col.10 Ln.55-59])
PNG
media_image2.png
756
501
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the Applicant’s effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of the Saeki-Tseng combination with the disclosed teachings of Friedl in order “to understand better the manufacturing process and integrate this knowledge into component design, early in the design phase” Friedl [Col.1 Ln.29-31].
Regarding Claim 20, Saeki-Tseng-Friedl disclose the CRM of Claim 14, Saeki further discloses, wherein the regularly patterned holes are included in the digital 3D model, wherein the operations further comprise: removing the regularly patterned holes in the digital 3D model; (“The model creation portion 12 can use 3D-CAD, CAM, CAE and the like. The space/obstacle separation model creation portion 14 selects a place where a space and an obstacle (i.e. holes) can be separated (i.e. removal of the holes) from each other in the manner of the shape data,” Saeki [P.0049])
and creating the discretizing mesh after removing the regularly patterned holes in the digital 3D model. (“and sets the space directly to be a flow path, and divides it into predetermined meshes.” Saeki [P.0049])
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki et al. US Pub No. 2008/0234989 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Saeki”), in view of Tseng et al. US Patent No. 8571828 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “Tseng”), in view of Friedl et al. US Patent No. US 6816820 B1 (hereinafter referred to as “Friedl”), and in further view of Lai, Jiing-Yih, Pei-Pu Song, Chia-Hsiang Hsu, and Yao-Chen Tsai. "Recognition and Simplification of Holes in CAD Models of an Injection Mold for Mold Flow Analysis" Computer-Aided Design & Applications 17, no. 1 (2020) (hereinafter referred to as “Lai”).
Regarding Claim 17, Saeki-Tseng-Friedl disclose the CRM of Claim 15, Saeki further discloses, ,
wherein determining the flow factor comprises obtaining flow characteristics using analytical results or empirical data. (Obtaining flow characteristics/factor, as Saeki discloses in Claim 1, is interpreted as being determined using analytical results or empirical data because “The space / obstacle separation analysis portion, combining with conservation equations of mass, momentum and energy for describing movement of fluid and heat transfer, computes filling behavior of the thermosets, and the space/obstacle combination analysis portion, combining the viscosity equation with a conservation equation directed to a shape simplified as porous media, computes filling behavior of the thermosets, and numerical analysis is performed by using a finite difference method or a finite element method” Saeki [P.0013])
However, Saeki-Tseng-Friedl fail to specifically disclose wherein the regularly patterned holes comprise blind holes.
On the other hand, analogous art of Lai discloses wherein the regularly patterned holes comprise blind holes (“In this study, we focus on the recognition of a series (i.e. regularly patterned) of holes passing across different CAD models and arrange them in sequence. Holes that are used in mold flow analyses, such as core, cavity, runner system, and cooling channels, are identified and preserved... To aid the analysis, holes can be classified into several types... If the hole breaks through the surface of the part it is called a “through hole”, otherwise it is called a “blind hole”.” Lai [Pg.90 P.2-3])
Lai is analogous art as it relates to injection molding fluid analysis. Lai [Pg.88 Abstract] teaches “The purpose of this study is to recognize and simplify unnecessary holes in an injection mold for mold flow analyses.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the Applicant’s effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined teachings of Saeki-Tseng-Friedl to incorporate blind holes, as Lai teaches, in order “to recognize and simplify unnecessary holes in an injection mold for mold flow analyses” Lai [Pg.88 Abstract].
Regarding Claim 18, Saeki-Tseng-Friedl disclose the CRM of Claim 15, Saeki further discloses, , wherein determining the flow factor comprises obtaining flow characteristics using analytical results or empirical data. (Obtaining flow characteristics, as Saeki discloses in Claim 1, is interpreted as being determined using analytical results or empirical data because “The space/obstacle separation analysis portion, combining with conservation equations of mass, momentum and energy for describing movement of fluid and heat transfer, computes filling behavior of the thermosets, and the space/obstacle combination analysis portion, combining the viscosity equation with a conservation equation directed to a shape simplified as porous media, computes filling behavior of the thermosets, and numerical analysis is performed by using a finite difference method or a finite element method” Saeki [P.0013]).
However, Saeki-Tseng-Friedl fail to specifically disclose wherein the regularly patterned holes comprise a varied profile hole, wherein the varied profile hole defines a varied cross-sectional shape across a depth of the hole.
On the other hand, analogous art of Lai discloses wherein the regularly patterned holes comprise a varied profile hole, wherein the varied profile hole defines a varied cross-sectional shape across a depth of the hole (“In this study, we focus on the recognition of a series (i.e. regularly patterned) of holes passing across different CAD models and arrange them in sequence. Holes that are used in mold flow analyses, such as core, cavity, runner system, and cooling channels, are identified and preserved... To aid the analysis, holes can be classified into several types... If all holes connect to each other in series, it is called a ladder hole, such as the cases in Figures 1(c) and (d) (see below), which contain two and three holes connected in series, respectively” Lai [Pg.90 P.2-3])
PNG
media_image1.png
507
926
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
Applicant’s effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined teachings of Saeki-Tseng-Friedl to consider varied profile holes, as Lai teaches, since in order “to improve the accuracy of the analysis, the real, non-simplified model base must be considered”. Lai [Pg.88 Abstract].
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anthony Chavez whose telephone number is (571) 272-1036. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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.
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.
/ANTHONY CHAVEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186