DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4 are presented for examination. Claims 1-4 stand currently amended.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Finality of Office Action
The following is a brief summary description of new ground(s) of rejection (if any) and the reason why those new ground(s) are made necessary by this amendment:
No new grounds of rejection are presented herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 15 April 2026 have been fully considered and Examiner’s response is as follows:
Applicant remarks page 8-9 argues:
A. The Combined References Fail to Teach Determining a Load Condition That Matches the Deformation Form Obtained from Vibration Analysis
….
The problem with the Office Action's mapping is that these two teachings have no relationship to each other, and the amended claim language makes this gap impossible to bridge. The independent claims now explicitly require that the load condition be "determined such that a deformation generated in the automotive body model by the load condition matches the deformation form in the obtained vibration mode." This is not satisfied by pointing to a deformation form in one reference and a load condition in another and asserting that they correspond.
This argument is unpersuasive.
The load conditions and the mode shapes are related by the “dynamic load” taught by both Jasuja and Rashid. Therefore, Examiner is unpersuaded that these teachings have no relationship to each other as Applicant argues.
Applicant remarks page 9 further argues:
The claim requires that the load condition be determined by reference to the observed deformation form, to produce a matching deformation in the model. That determination is with a specific input (the observed deformation form) driving a specific output (a load condition chosen because it reproduces that form).
The claim language does not recite a specific input/output relationship. The claim language “the load condition is determined such that a deformation generated … matches the deformation form in the obtained vibration mode” does not require that the matching is in a forward direction. A backwards correspondence is similarly a matching within the scope of this claim language.
Nonetheless, Rashid does teach such a correspondence for the dynamic loading (i.e. operating loads). Rashid page 1 left column teaches “Initially, for most structures undergoing dynamic loading, it is essential to know the natural frequencies and the corresponding mode shapes.” The natural frequencies correspond with a vibration mode of the dynamic loading. The dynamic loading corresponds with a respective set of deformation forms.
Applicant remarks page 10 further argues:
The Office Action's assertion that Rashid's dynamic loads "correspond to" the deformation form and vibration mode does not establish the required determination step. It is of course true that any deformation of a structure has some associated load. But the claims require something more specific: that the deformation form produced by vibration analysis be examined, and that a load condition then be determined that is chosen specifically because it will reproduce that form when applied to the model.
The claims do not recite that the load condition “will reproduce that form when applied to the model” as Applicant argues here. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is arguing features not claimed.
The claim language merely requires the load condition “[corresponding to/matches] the deformation form in the obtained vibration mode.” Applicant is reading significantly more into the recitation of “corresponding to” or “matches” requirement than is actually written in the claim language itself. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant remarks page 10 further argues:
B. The Combined References Fail to Teach the Required Input/Output Chain
The independent claims recite a specific sequential chain in which the output of one step serves as the required input to the next. Specifically: the vibration analysis step produces a deformation form as its output; that deformation form is the required input to the load condition determination step, which produces a determined load condition as its output; and that determined load condition is then the required input to the optimization analysis step, which produces the optimized adhesive portions as its output.
This chain does not exist in the combined references. In Jasuja, the optimization of adhesive placement occurs through a ranking process applied to a model with adhesive bonds at all seams. That ranking process is completed before any NVH analysis is performed.
The claims do not recite any explicit input/output chain as claimed. Furthermore, the claims do not implicitly require that the correspondence/matching of claim 1 clause 2 is in a forward direction. Inputting respective operating loads (loading condition) to determine output deformation mode shapes and dynamic loading performance is also a determination of a matching loading condition for corresponding deformation form(s).
Jasuja column 5 lines 17-23 disclose:
In step 26, the fully bonded body is analyzed for its static performance (e.g., bending and torsion stiffness) and its dynamic performance (e.g., natural frequencies). Then, a bond CAE optimization is performed, which ranks the each of the bonded seams based on their contribution to the body stiffness (i.e., both static and dynamic performance).
Thus, Jasuja teaches analyzing a dynamic performance first, and then ranking based on that performance. Examiner notes it is this dynamic performance of natural frequencies which corresponds with the vibration mode claimed. Clearly, the above cited section teaches the analysis being done before the ranking.
Regarding Rashid, Rashid page 1 left column teaches “Initially, for most structures undergoing dynamic loading, it is essential to know the natural frequencies and the corresponding mode shapes.” The natural frequencies correspond with a vibration mode of the dynamic loading. The mode shape corresponds with a deformation form. Here, Rashid section 2 teaches performing the real eigenvalue analysis to find the natural frequencies and derive the corresponding mode shapes therefrom. However, the claim language allows for correspondence/matching being determined in this direction of natural frequencies to model shapes. Indeed, claim 1 clause 1 recites “obtaining a vibration mode … and a deformation form in the vibration mode” which further suggests the deformation form (i.e. mode shapes) is obtained at least in part based on the vibration mode (i.e. natural frequencies).
Applicant remarks page 11 further argues:
Even treating Jasuja and Rashid as a combined system, the Office Action has not identified how the mode shapes from Rashid's eigenvalue analysis would flow into Jasuja's load selection.
It doesn’t. The mode shapes of Rashid do not flow into a load selection. The mode shapes corresponding with the eigenvalue analysis to determine natural frequencies. Rashid page 2 right column continues in the next sentence saying “The results can be used to predict the dynamic behavior of the structure.” Thus, the frequencies and mode shapes are then used with input load conditions to determine dynamic behavior of the structure. Essentially, the load condition is the input into this process. As discussed above, this is sufficient for reading on the currently recited claim language.
Applicant remarks page 11 further argues:
The Office Action characterizes Jasuja's full vehicle NVH analysis as teaching the frequency response analysis step. However, Jasuja's NVH analysis is a validation procedure applied to a body structure design that has already been substantially finalized through the earlier ranking and selection process.
Jasuja column 5 lines 17-23 disclose:
In step 26, the fully bonded body is analyzed for its static performance (e.g., bending and torsion stiffness) and its dynamic performance (e.g., natural frequencies). Then, a bond CAE optimization is performed, which ranks the each of the bonded seams based on their contribution to the body stiffness (i.e., both static and dynamic performance).
Thus, Jasuja teaches analyzing a dynamic performance first, and then ranking based on that performance. Examiner notes it is this dynamic performance of natural frequencies which corresponds with the vibration mode claimed. Clearly, the above cited section teaches the analysis being done before the ranking.
Regarding the frequency analysis, Examiner notes Rashid is cited regarding the “deformation form” claim element and not Jasuja in isolation.
Applicant remarks page 12 further argues:
With respect to the optimization analysis model generation step, the claims require generating a model by setting adhesive candidates in the automotive body model, where those candidates serve as candidates for optimization. Jasuja instead begins with adhesive bonds at all seams and progressively removes or deprioritizes them through a ranking process. This is a different conceptual approach: Jasuja narrows from a fully bonded state, while the claims build up candidate positions as discrete optimization targets. The Office Action does not address this distinction.
This argument is unpersuasive. The claims nowhere recite the optimization analysis involves additively analyzing added adhesive candidates. The claims recite “setting an adhesive candidate” and “adhesive candidate set” without specifying the order with which adhesive joins are considered. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is based upon features not recited in the claims.
Applicant remarks page 12 further argues:
The motivation to combine is also not well-supported. Rashid is directed to improving natural frequency by adding structural reinforcement, specifically by modifying component thickness. Rashid's approach has no connection to optimizing adhesive placement alongside welds.
This argument is unpersuasive. Combining references under §103 does not require bodily incorporation of the entirety of the reference. Rashid is cited for teaching the relationship between natural frequencies and mode shapes when considering dynamic loading.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 3 and 4 have been amended to no longer invoke 112(f). Therefore, claims 3 and 4 no longer require corresponding written description disclosure of structure material, or acts. Accordingly, Examiner withdraws the §112 rejection of claims 3 and 4.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent 6,766,206 B1 Jasuja, et al. [herein “Jasuja”] in view of Rashid, A., et al. “Improving the Dynamic Characteristics of Body-in-White Structure Using Structural Optimization” Scientific World J., vol. 2014, article no. 190214 (2014) [herein “Rashid”].
Claim 1 recites “1. An optimization analysis method of an adhesive position in an automotive body for obtaining an optimized position where a parts assembly is adhesively bonded by using a structural adhesive in conjunction with welding.” Jasuja column 1 lines 8-11 disclose “a method for designing an automotive body structure which provides enhanced stiffness and weight reduction by optimizing the application of adhesive bond technology throughout the body structure.” Optimizing the adhesive of an automotive body structure design corresponds with an optimization analysis of adhesive in an automotive body.
Jasuja column 4 lines 26-27 disclose “and the location, size and/or type of adhesive used to form the joint.” Jasuja column 5 lines 55-58 disclose “The CAE system 14 records loads, sag, movement, and other conventional performance measurements in various locations on the body structure when it is exposed to the operating loads.” The locations of adhesive joins are adhesive positions.
Jasuja column 4 lines 57-60 disclose “data corresponding to the location and type of adhesive used to join portions of the body structure; and data corresponding to the location and type of welds used to join portions of the body structure.” The locations of adhesive join portions and welds used in join portions correspond with adhesive in conjunction with welding.
Claim 1 further recites “the method being executed by a computer using an automotive body model including a plurality of parts including a two-dimensional element and/or a three-dimensional element wherein a welding portion to which the plurality of parts are welded as the parts assembly is preset.” Jasuja column 5 lines 9-11 disclose “a conventional manner using computer aided design (‘CAD’) software and/or any other computer Software.” Computer software is computer executed.
Jasuja column 4 lines 51-60 disclose:
A user enters parameters and variables that correspond to the characteristics and attributes of the various portions of the vehicle body structure. Specifically, a user enters information such as data corresponding to the gage, shape, and size of the panels and other members that cooperatively form the body structure; data corresponding to the geometry of the body structure; data corresponding to the location and type of adhesive used to join portions of the body structure; and data corresponding to the location and type of welds used to join portions of the body structure.
Data of a vehicle body structure corresponds with an automotive body model plurality of parts. The welded joins correspond with welds on the plurality of parts.
Claim 1 further recites “and the method comprising: imposing a predetermined vibration condition on the automotive body model, performing frequency response analysis.” Jasuja column 5 lines 45-55 disclose:
the body structure having the desired combination of adhesive bond joints and/or seams is subjected to a full vehicle CAE analysis. Particularly, an analysis is performed on the full vehicle system model to compute stiffness and noise vibration harshness "NVH" responses, such as subjective NVH ratings, seat track vibrations and other measurable attributes. The body structure model is subjected to various operating loads that correspond to loads that would be experienced during the normal operation of a vehicle (e.g., forces generated and/or imparted on the body structure during the operation of the vehicle).
The stiffness and vibration response analysis corresponds with a frequency response analysis of a vibration condition. Subjecting the body to operating loads corresponds with using a respective vibration condition when performing the frequency analysis.
Claim 1 further recites “and obtaining a vibration mode generated in the automotive body model, and a deformation form in the vibration mode.” Jasuja does not explicitly disclose a vibration mode and deformation form; however, in analogous art of optimizing dynamic behavior of vehicle structure, Rashid page 1 left column teaches “Initially, for most structures undergoing dynamic loading, it is essential to know the natural frequencies and the corresponding mode shapes.” The natural frequencies correspond with a vibration mode. The mode shape corresponds with a deformation form.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jasuja and Rashid. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use modal analysis into the system of design automotive structure using adhesives for the advantageous purpose “to achieve the target vibration specifications without compromising the stiffness of the structure. See Rashid abstract.
Claim 1 further recites “determining a load condition to be imposed on the automotive body model, the load condition corresponding to the deformation form in the obtained vibration mode, wherein the load condition is determined such that a deformation generated in the automotive body model by the load condition matches the deformation form in the obtained vibration mode.” Jasuja column 5 lines 45-55 disclose:
the body structure having the desired combination of adhesive bond joints and/or seams is subjected to a full vehicle CAE analysis. Particularly, an analysis is performed on the full vehicle system model to compute stiffness and noise vibration harshness "NVH" responses, such as subjective NVH ratings, seat track vibrations and other measurable attributes. The body structure model is subjected to various operating loads that correspond to loads that would be experienced during the normal operation of a vehicle (e.g., forces generated and/or imparted on the body structure during the operation of the vehicle).
Relevant for the deformation form taught by Rashid discussed above, Rashid abstract teaches “subjected to dynamic load.” Accordingly, the particular deformation form and vibration mode taught by Rashid also correspond to a respective load condition.
Rashid page 1 left column teaches “Initially, for most structures undergoing dynamic loading, it is essential to know the natural frequencies and the corresponding mode shapes.” The natural frequencies correspond with a vibration mode. The mode shape corresponds with a deformation form. The dynamic loading corresponds with the operating loads.
Claim 1 further recites “generating an optimization analysis model obtained by setting an adhesive candidate in the automotive body model, the adhesive candidate serving as a candidate for adhesive bonding of the parts assembly.” Jasuja column 5 lines 20-23 disclose “a bond CAE optimization is performed, which ranks the each of the bonded seams based on their contribution to the body stiffness (i.e., both static and dynamic performance).” The respective bond performance of each adhesive bond corresponds with a generated optimization analysis of each adhesive bond. Each bond corresponds with a respective adhesive candidate.
Claim 1 further recites “setting an optimization analysis condition used to perform optimization analysis by using, as an optimization target, the adhesive candidate set in the generated optimization analysis model; and imposing the load condition on the optimization analysis model, performing the optimization analysis.” Jasuja column 5 lines 45-55 disclose:
the body structure having the desired combination of adhesive bond joints and/or seams is subjected to a full vehicle CAE analysis. Particularly, an analysis is performed on the full vehicle system model to compute stiffness and noise vibration harshness "NVH" responses, such as subjective NVH ratings, seat track vibrations and other measurable attributes. The body structure model is subjected to various operating loads that correspond to loads that would be experienced during the normal operation of a vehicle (e.g., forces generated and/or imparted on the body structure during the operation of the vehicle).
The operating load conditions correspond with a condition used during the optimization analysis.
Claim 1 further recites “and obtaining the adhesive candidate that satisfies the optimization analysis condition, as an optimized adhesive portion where each parts assembly is adhesively bonded.” Jasuja column 6 lines 19-26 disclose:
Once the body structure has been fully "optimized", the body structure will employ minimum gage values for the panels and members of the structure, and the use of adhesive within the body structure will substantially meet the primary cost, manufacturing and performance objectives. Hence, the "optimized" structure, shown in block 38, will have a minimum weight, while continuing to satisfy the desired stiffness and performance criteria.
Optimizing the body structure including use of adhesive within the body structure corresponds with obtaining the adhesive candidate(s) that satisfy the optimization of respective optimized adhesive portions.
Claim 2 recites “2. An optimization analysis method of an adhesive position in an automotive body for obtaining an optimized position where a parts assembly is adhesively bonded by using a structural adhesive in conjunction with welding.” Jasuja column 1 lines 8-11 disclose “a method for designing an automotive body structure which provides enhanced stiffness and weight reduction by optimizing the application of adhesive bond technology throughout the body structure.” Optimizing the adhesive of an automotive body structure design corresponds with an optimization analysis of adhesive in an automotive body.
Jasuja column 4 lines 26-27 disclose “and the location, size and/or type of adhesive used to form the joint.” Jasuja column 5 lines 55-58 disclose “The CAE system 14 records loads, sag, movement, and other conventional performance measurements in various locations on the body structure when it is exposed to the operating loads.” The locations of adhesive joins are adhesive positions.
Jasuja column 4 lines 57-60 disclose “data corresponding to the location and type of adhesive used to join portions of the body structure; and data corresponding to the location and type of welds used to join portions of the body structure.” The locations of adhesive join portions and welds used in join portions correspond with adhesive in conjunction with welding.
Claim 2 further recites “the method being executed by a computer using an automotive body model including a plurality of parts including a two-dimensional element and/or a three-dimensional element wherein a welding portion to which the plurality of parts are welded as the parts assembly is preset.” Jasuja column 5 lines 9-11 disclose “a conventional manner using computer aided design (‘CAD’) software and/or any other computer Software.” Computer software is computer executed.
Jasuja column 4 lines 51-60 disclose:
A user enters parameters and variables that correspond to the characteristics and attributes of the various portions of the vehicle body structure. Specifically, a user enters information such as data corresponding to the gage, shape, and size of the panels and other members that cooperatively form the body structure; data corresponding to the geometry of the body structure; data corresponding to the location and type of adhesive used to join portions of the body structure; and data corresponding to the location and type of welds used to join portions of the body structure.
Data of a vehicle body structure corresponds with an automotive body model plurality of parts. The welded joins correspond with welds on the plurality of parts.
Claim 2 further recites “and the method comprising: performing eigenvalue analysis on the automotive body model.” Jasuja does not explicitly disclose an eigenvalue analysis; however, in analogous art of optimizing dynamic behavior of vehicle structure, Rashid page 2 section 2 first paragraph teaches “For the modal analysis, real eigenvalue analysis was done using Altair-Hyperworks to find the natural frequencies and the corresponding mode shapes ignoring the damping.” The eigenvalue analysis of the modal analysis corresponds to an eigenvalue analysis step on the automotive body model.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jasuja and Rashid. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use modal analysis into the system of design automotive structure using adhesives for the advantageous purpose “to achieve the target vibration specifications without compromising the stiffness of the structure. See Rashid abstract.
Claim 2 further recites “and obtaining a vibration mode generated in the automotive body model, and a deformation form in the vibration mode.” Jasuja does not explicitly disclose a vibration mode and deformation form; however, in analogous art of optimizing dynamic behavior of vehicle structure, Rashid page 1 left column teaches “Initially, for most structures undergoing dynamic loading, it is essential to know the natural frequencies and the corresponding mode shapes.” Rashid page 2 section 2 first paragraph teaches “For the modal analysis, real eigenvalue analysis was done using Altair-Hyperworks to find the natural frequencies and the corresponding mode shapes ignoring the damping.” The natural frequencies correspond with a vibration mode. The mode shape corresponds with a deformation form.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jasuja and Rashid. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use modal analysis into the system of design automotive structure using adhesives for the advantageous purpose “to achieve the target vibration specifications without compromising the stiffness of the structure. See Rashid abstract.
Claim 2 further recites “determining a load condition to be imposed on the automotive body model, the load condition corresponding to the deformation form in the obtained vibration mode, wherein the load condition is determined such that a deformation generated in the automotive body model by the load condition matches the deformation form in the obtained vibration mode.” Jasuja column 5 lines 45-55 disclose:
the body structure having the desired combination of adhesive bond joints and/or seams is subjected to a full vehicle CAE analysis. Particularly, an analysis is performed on the full vehicle system model to compute stiffness and noise vibration harshness "NVH" responses, such as subjective NVH ratings, seat track vibrations and other measurable attributes. The body structure model is subjected to various operating loads that correspond to loads that would be experienced during the normal operation of a vehicle (e.g., forces generated and/or imparted on the body structure during the operation of the vehicle).
Relevant for the deformation form taught by Rashid discussed above, Rashid abstract teaches “subjected to dynamic load.” Accordingly, the particular deformation form and vibration mode taught by Rashid also correspond to a respective load condition.
Rashid page 1 left column teaches “Initially, for most structures undergoing dynamic loading, it is essential to know the natural frequencies and the corresponding mode shapes.” The natural frequencies correspond with a vibration mode. The mode shape corresponds with a deformation form. The dynamic loading corresponds with the operating loads.
Claim 2 further recites “generating an optimization analysis model obtained by setting an adhesive candidate in the automotive body model, the adhesive candidate serving as a candidate for adhesive bonding of the parts assembly.” Jasuja column 5 lines 20-23 disclose “a bond CAE optimization is performed, which ranks the each of the bonded seams based on their contribution to the body stiffness (i.e., both static and dynamic performance).” The respective bond performance of each adhesive bond corresponds with a generated optimization analysis of each adhesive bond. Each bond corresponds with a respective adhesive candidate.
Claim 2 further recites “setting an optimization analysis condition used to perform optimization analysis by using, as an optimization target, the adhesive candidate set in the generated optimization analysis model; and imposing the load condition on the optimization analysis model, performing the optimization analysis.” Jasuja column 5 lines 45-55 disclose:
the body structure having the desired combination of adhesive bond joints and/or seams is subjected to a full vehicle CAE analysis. Particularly, an analysis is performed on the full vehicle system model to compute stiffness and noise vibration harshness "NVH" responses, such as subjective NVH ratings, seat track vibrations and other measurable attributes. The body structure model is subjected to various operating loads that correspond to loads that would be experienced during the normal operation of a vehicle (e.g., forces generated and/or imparted on the body structure during the operation of the vehicle).
The operating load conditions correspond with a condition used during the optimization analysis.
Claim 2 further recites “and obtaining the adhesive candidate that satisfies the optimization analysis condition, as an optimized adhesive portion where each parts assembly is adhesively bonded.” Jasuja column 6 lines 19-26 disclose:
Once the body structure has been fully "optimized", the body structure will employ minimum gage values for the panels and members of the structure, and the use of adhesive within the body structure will substantially meet the primary cost, manufacturing and performance objectives. Hence, the "optimized" structure, shown in block 38, will have a minimum weight, while continuing to satisfy the desired stiffness and performance criteria.
Optimizing the body structure including use of adhesive within the body structure corresponds with obtaining the adhesive candidate(s) that satisfy the optimization of respective optimized adhesive portions.
Claim 3 recites “3. An optimization analysis apparatus of an adhesive position in an automotive body for obtaining an optimized position where a parts assembly is adhesively bonded by using a structural adhesive in conjunction with welding.” Jasuja column 1 lines 8-11 disclose “a method for designing an automotive body structure which provides enhanced stiffness and weight reduction by optimizing the application of adhesive bond technology throughout the body structure.” Optimizing the adhesive of an automotive body structure design corresponds with an optimization analysis of adhesive in an automotive body.
Jasuja column 4 lines 26-27 disclose “and the location, size and/or type of adhesive used to form the joint.” Jasuja column 5 lines 55-58 disclose “The CAE system 14 records loads, sag, movement, and other conventional performance measurements in various locations on the body structure when it is exposed to the operating loads.” The locations of adhesive joins are adhesive positions.
Jasuja column 4 lines 57-60 disclose “data corresponding to the location and type of adhesive used to join portions of the body structure; and data corresponding to the location and type of welds used to join portions of the body structure.” The locations of adhesive join portions and welds used in join portions correspond with adhesive in conjunction with welding.
Claim 3 further recites “by using an automotive body model including a plurality of parts including a two-dimensional element and/or a three- dimensional element wherein a welding portion to which the plurality of parts are welded as the parts assembly is preset.” Jasuja column 5 lines 9-11 disclose “a conventional manner using computer aided design (‘CAD’) software and/or any other computer Software.” Computer software is computer executed.
Jasuja column 4 lines 51-60 disclose:
A user enters parameters and variables that correspond to the characteristics and attributes of the various portions of the vehicle body structure. Specifically, a user enters information such as data corresponding to the gage, shape, and size of the panels and other members that cooperatively form the body structure; data corresponding to the geometry of the body structure; data corresponding to the location and type of adhesive used to join portions of the body structure; and data corresponding to the location and type of welds used to join portions of the body structure.
Data of a vehicle body structure corresponds with an automotive body model plurality of parts. The welded joins correspond with welds on the plurality of parts.
Claim 3 further recites “the optimization analysis apparatus comprising: a memory; and a processor configured to execute: imposing a predetermined vibration condition on the automotive body model, performing frequency response analysis.” Jasuja column 5 lines 45-55 disclose:
the body structure having the desired combination of adhesive bond joints and/or seams is subjected to a full vehicle CAE analysis. Particularly, an analysis is performed on the full vehicle system model to compute stiffness and noise vibration harshness "NVH" responses, such as subjective NVH ratings, seat track vibrations and other measurable attributes. The body structure model is subjected to various operating loads that correspond to loads that would be experienced during the normal operation of a vehicle (e.g., forces generated and/or imparted on the body structure during the operation of the vehicle).
The stiffness and vibration response analysis corresponds with a frequency response analysis of a vibration condition. Subjecting the body to operating loads corresponds with using a respective vibration condition when performing the frequency analysis.
Claim 3 further recites “obtaining a vibration mode generated in the automotive body model, and a deformation form in the vibration mode.” Jasuja does not explicitly disclose a vibration mode and deformation form; however, in analogous art of optimizing dynamic behavior of vehicle structure, Rashid page 1 left column teaches “Initially, for most structures undergoing dynamic loading, it is essential to know the natural frequencies and the corresponding mode shapes.” The natural frequencies correspond with a vibration mode. The mode shape corresponds with a deformation form.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jasuja and Rashid. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use modal analysis into the system of design automotive structure using adhesives for the advantageous purpose “to achieve the target vibration specifications without compromising the stiffness of the structure. See Rashid abstract.
Claim 3 further recites “determining a load condition to be imposed on the automotive body model, the load condition corresponding to the deformation form in the obtained vibration mode, wherein the load condition is determined such that a deformation generated in the automotive body model by the load condition matches the deformation form in the obtained vibration mode.” Jasuja column 5 lines 45-55 disclose:
the body structure having the desired combination of adhesive bond joints and/or seams is subjected to a full vehicle CAE analysis. Particularly, an analysis is performed on the full vehicle system model to compute stiffness and noise vibration harshness "NVH" responses, such as subjective NVH ratings, seat track vibrations and other measurable attributes. The body structure model is subjected to various operating loads that correspond to loads that would be experienced during the normal operation of a vehicle (e.g., forces generated and/or imparted on the body structure during the operation of the vehicle).
Relevant for the deformation form taught by Rashid discussed above, Rashid abstract teaches “subjected to dynamic load.” Accordingly, the particular deformation form and vibration mode taught by Rashid also correspond to a respective load condition.
Rashid page 1 left column teaches “Initially, for most structures undergoing dynamic loading, it is essential to know the natural frequencies and the corresponding mode shapes.” The natural frequencies correspond with a vibration mode. The mode shape corresponds with a deformation form. The dynamic loading corresponds with the operating loads.
Claim 3 further recites “generating an optimization analysis model obtained by setting an adhesive candidate in the automotive body model, the adhesive candidate serving as a candidate for adhesive bonding of the parts assembly.” Jasuja column 5 lines 20-23 disclose “a bond CAE optimization is performed, which ranks the each of the bonded seams based on their contribution to the body stiffness (i.e., both static and dynamic performance).” The respective bond performance of each adhesive bond corresponds with a generated optimization analysis of each adhesive bond. Each bond corresponds with a respective adhesive candidate.
Claim 3 further recites “setting an optimization analysis condition used to perform optimization analysis by using, as an optimization target, the adhesive candidate set in the generated optimization analysis model; imposing the load condition on the optimization analysis model in which the optimization analysis condition has been set, performing the optimization analysis.” Jasuja column 5 lines 45-55 disclose:
the body structure having the desired combination of adhesive bond joints and/or seams is subjected to a full vehicle CAE analysis. Particularly, an analysis is performed on the full vehicle system model to compute stiffness and noise vibration harshness "NVH" responses, such as subjective NVH ratings, seat track vibrations and other measurable attributes. The body structure model is subjected to various operating loads that correspond to loads that would be experienced during the normal operation of a vehicle (e.g., forces generated and/or imparted on the body structure during the operation of the vehicle).
The operating load conditions correspond with a condition used during the optimization analysis.
Claim 3 further recites “and obtaining the adhesive candidate that satisfies the optimization analysis condition, as an optimized adhesive portion where each parts assembly is adhesively bonded.” Jasuja column 6 lines 19-26 disclose:
Once the body structure has been fully "optimized", the body structure will employ minimum gage values for the panels and members of the structure, and the use of adhesive within the body structure will substantially meet the primary cost, manufacturing and performance objectives. Hence, the "optimized" structure, shown in block 38, will have a minimum weight, while continuing to satisfy the desired stiffness and performance criteria.
Optimizing the body structure including use of adhesive within the body structure corresponds with obtaining the adhesive candidate(s) that satisfy the optimization of respective optimized adhesive portions.
Claim 4 recites “4. An optimization analysis apparatus of an adhesive position in an automotive body for obtaining an optimized position where a parts assembly is adhesively bonded by using a structural adhesive in conjunction with welding.” Jasuja column 1 lines 8-11 disclose “a method for designing an automotive body structure which provides enhanced stiffness and weight reduction by optimizing the application of adhesive bond technology throughout the body structure.” Optimizing the adhesive of an automotive body structure design corresponds with an optimization analysis of adhesive in an automotive body.
Jasuja column 4 lines 26-27 disclose “and the location, size and/or type of adhesive used to form the joint.” Jasuja column 5 lines 55-58 disclose “The CAE system 14 records loads, sag, movement, and other conventional performance measurements in various locations on the body structure when it is exposed to the operating loads.” The locations of adhesive joins are adhesive positions.
Jasuja column 4 lines 57-60 disclose “data corresponding to the location and type of adhesive used to join portions of the body structure; and data corresponding to the location and type of welds used to join portions of the body structure.” The locations of adhesive join portions and welds used in join portions correspond with adhesive in conjunction with welding.
Claim 4 further recites “by using an automotive body model including a plurality of parts including a two-dimensional element and/or a three- dimensional element wherein a welding portion to which the plurality of parts are welded as the parts assembly is preset.” Jasuja column 5 lines 9-11 disclose “a conventional manner using computer aided design (‘CAD’) software and/or any other computer Software.” Computer software is computer executed.
Jasuja column 4 lines 51-60 disclose:
A user enters parameters and variables that correspond to the characteristics and attributes of the various portions of the vehicle body structure. Specifically, a user enters information such as data corresponding to the gage, shape, and size of the panels and other members that cooperatively form the body structure; data corresponding to the geometry of the body structure; data corresponding to the location and type of adhesive used to join portions of the body structure; and data corresponding to the location and type of welds used to join portions of the body structure.
Data of a vehicle body structure corresponds with an automotive body model plurality of parts. The welded joins correspond with welds on the plurality of parts.
Claim 4 further recites “the optimization analysis apparatus comprising: a memory; and a processor configured to execute: performing eigenvalue analysis on the automotive body model.” Jasuja does not explicitly disclose an eigenvalue analysis; however, in analogous art of optimizing dynamic behavior of vehicle structure, Rashid page 2 section 2 first paragraph teaches “For the modal analysis, real eigenvalue analysis was done using Altair-Hyperworks to find the natural frequencies and the corresponding mode shapes ignoring the damping.” The eigenvalue analysis of the modal analysis corresponds to an eigenvalue analysis step on the automotive body model.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jasuja and Rashid. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use modal analysis into the system of design automotive structure using adhesives for the advantageous purpose “to achieve the target vibration specifications without compromising the stiffness of the structure. See Rashid abstract.
Claim 4 further recites “obtaining a vibration mode generated in the automotive body model, and a deformation form in the vibration mode.” Jasuja does not explicitly disclose a vibration mode and deformation form; however, in analogous art of optimizing dynamic behavior of vehicle structure, Rashid page 1 left column teaches “Initially, for most structures undergoing dynamic loading, it is essential to know the natural frequencies and the corresponding mode shapes.” Rashid page 2 section 2 first paragraph teaches “For the modal analysis, real eigenvalue analysis was done using Altair-Hyperworks to find the natural frequencies and the corresponding mode shapes ignoring the damping.” The natural frequencies correspond with a vibration mode. The mode shape corresponds with a deformation form.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jasuja and Rashid. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use modal analysis into the system of design automotive structure using adhesives for the advantageous purpose “to achieve the target vibration specifications without compromising the stiffness of the structure. See Rashid abstract.
Claim 4 further recites “determining a load condition to be imposed on the automotive body model, the load condition corresponding to the deformation form in the obtained vibration mode, wherein the load condition is determined such that a deformation generated in the automotive body model by the load condition matches the deformation form in the obtained vibration mode.” Jasuja column 5 lines 45-55 disclose:
the body structure having the desired combination of adhesive bond joints and/or seams is subjected to a full vehicle CAE analysis. Particularly, an analysis is performed on the full vehicle system model to compute stiffness and noise vibration harshness "NVH" responses, such as subjective NVH ratings, seat track vibrations and other measurable attributes. The body structure model is subjected to various operating loads that correspond to loads that would be experienced during the normal operation of a vehicle (e.g., forces generated and/or imparted on the body structure during the operation of the vehicle).
Relevant for the deformation form taught by Rashid discussed above, Rashid abstract teaches “subjected to dynamic load.” Accordingly, the particular deformation form and vibration mode taught by Rashid also correspond to a respective load condition.
Rashid page 1 left column teaches “Initially, for most structures undergoing dynamic loading, it is essential to know the natural frequencies and the corresponding mode shapes.” The natural frequencies correspond with a vibration mode. The mode shape corresponds with a deformation form. The dynamic loading corresponds with the operating loads.
Claim 4 further recites “generating an optimization analysis model obtained by setting an adhesive candidate in the automotive body model, the adhesive candidate serving as a candidate for adhesive bonding of the parts assembly.” Jasuja column 5 lines 20-23 disclose “a bond CAE optimization is performed, which ranks the each of the bonded seams based on their contribution to the body stiffness (i.e., both static and dynamic performance).” The respective bond performance of each adhesive bond corresponds with a generated optimization analysis of each adhesive bond. Each bond corresponds with a respective adhesive candidate.
Claim 4 further recites “setting an optimization analysis condition used to perform optimization analysis by using, as an optimization target, the adhesive candidate set in the generated optimization analysis model; imposing the load condition on the optimization analysis model in which the optimization analysis condition has been set, performing the optimization analysis.” Jasuja column 5 lines 45-55 disclose:
the body structure having the desired combination of adhesive bond joints and/or seams is subjected to a full vehicle CAE analysis. Particularly, an analysis is performed on the full vehicle system model to compute stiffness and noise vibration harshness "NVH" responses, such as subjective NVH ratings, seat track vibrations and other measurable attributes. The body structure model is subjected to various operating loads that correspond to loads that would be experienced during the normal operation of a vehicle (e.g., forces generated and/or imparted on the body structure during the operation of the vehicle).
The operating load conditions correspond with a condition used during the optimization analysis.
Claim 4 further recites “and obtaining the adhesive candidate that satisfies the optimization analysis condition, as an optimized adhesive portion where each parts assembly is adhesively bonded.” Jasuja column 6 lines 19-26 disclose:
Once the body structure has been fully "optimized", the body structure will employ minimum gage values for the panels and members of the structure, and the use of adhesive within the body structure will substantially meet the primary cost, manufacturing and performance objectives. Hence, the "optimized" structure, shown in block 38, will have a minimum weight, while continuing to satisfy the desired stiffness and performance criteria.
Optimizing the body structure including use of adhesive within the body structure corresponds with obtaining the adhesive candidate(s) that satisfy the optimization of respective optimized adhesive portions.
Conclusion
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 Jay B Hann whose telephone number is (571)272-3330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-7pm EDT.
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.
/Jay Hann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186 11 May 2026
Prosecution Insights