DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4 are presented for examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings received on 31 October 2022 are accepted.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 3:
a frequency response analysis unit configured to … (No corresponding structure found in Specification!)
a load condition determination unit configured to … (No corresponding structure found in Specification!)
an optimization analysis model generation unit configured to … (No corresponding structure found in Specification!)
an optimization analysis condition setting unit configured to … (No corresponding structure found in Specification!)
an optimization analysis unit configured to … (No corresponding structure found in Specification!)
Claim 4:
an eigenvalue analysis unit configured to … (No corresponding structure found in Specification!)
a load condition determination unit configured to … (No corresponding structure found in Specification!)
an optimization analysis model generation unit configured to … (No corresponding structure found in Specification!)
an optimization analysis condition setting unit configured to … (No corresponding structure found in Specification!)
an optimization analysis unit configured to … (No corresponding structure found in Specification!)
Each “unit” is specifically excluded from being interpreted as software per se. See MPEP §2181(II)(B) fourth to last paragraph. Accordingly, the software description of instant figure 8 showing these units as within, and therefore separate from, the “arithmetic processing unit” does not provide corresponding structure, material, or acts for any recited “unit”. Specification page 15 lines 7-8 state “The CPU executes a predetermined program, and therefore these respective units function.” Here, the Specification characterizes these units as “a predetermined program” however, §112(f) excludes interpretation as software so this disclosure does not provide corresponding structure, material, or acts for any recited “unit”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “unit configured to” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Each “unit” is specifically excluded from being interpreted as software per se. See MPEP §2181(II)(B) fourth to last paragraph. Accordingly, the software description of instant figure 8 showing these units as within, and therefore separate from, the “arithmetic processing unit” does not provide corresponding structure, material, or acts for any recited “unit”. Specification page 15 lines 7-8 state “The CPU executes a predetermined program, and therefore these respective units function.” Here, the Specification characterizes these units as “a predetermined program” however, §112(f) excludes interpretation as software so this disclosure does not provide corresponding structure, material, or acts for any recited “unit”.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 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: a frequency response analysis step of 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 “a load condition determination step of 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.” 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.
Claim 1 further recites “an optimization analysis model generation step of 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 “an optimization analysis condition setting step of 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 an optimization analysis step of imposing the load condition determined in the load condition determination step 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: an eigenvalue analysis step of 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 “a load condition determination step of 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.” 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.
Claim 2 further recites “an optimization analysis model generation step of 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 “an optimization analysis condition setting step of 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 an optimization analysis step of imposing the load condition determined in the load condition determination step 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 frequency response analysis unit configured to impose a predetermined vibration condition on the automotive body model, perform 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 “and obtain 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 “a load condition determination unit configured to determine a load condition to be imposed on the automotive body model, the load condition corresponding to 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.
Claim 3 further recites “an optimization analysis model generation unit configured to generate 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 “an optimization analysis condition setting unit configured to set 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 an optimization analysis unit configured to impose the load condition determined by the load condition determination unit on the optimization analysis model in which the optimization analysis condition has been set, perform 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 obtain 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: an eigenvalue analysis unit configured to perform 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 “and obtain 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 “a load condition determination unit configured to determine a load condition to be imposed on the automotive body model, the load condition corresponding to 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.
Claim 4 further recites “an optimization analysis model generation unit configured to generate 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 “an optimization analysis condition setting unit configured to set 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 an optimization analysis unit configured to impose the load condition determined by the load condition determination unit on the optimization analysis model in which the optimization analysis condition has been set, perform 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 obtain 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
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Saito, T., et al. “A Study of Topology Optimization for Joint Locations of Automotive Full Vehicle” Advances in Structural & Multidisciplinary Optimization, World Congress of Structural & Multidisciplinary Optimisation, pp. 1851-1862 (2018)
teaches
Adhesive/welding topology optimization; Spot welding interval optimizations.
Mohan, R., et al. "Improvements in Vehicle Stiffness by Adding Internal Reinforcements" Int'l J. Vehicle Structures & Systems, vol. 9, issue 2, pp. 72-76 (2017)
Mass reduction topology optimization considering bending and torsion stiffness. Internal reinforcement.
Cui, A., et al. "The Layout and Fatigue Life Analysis of Welding Spots for the Cab Body In White of a Commercial Vehicle" Int'l Conf. on Electronic & Mechanical Engineering & Information Tech., pp. 2089-2093 (2011)
Finite Element topology optimization of welding spots
Liu, X. "Shape Optimization of Car Body Structure Based on Uniform Design Method" IEEE Vehicle Power & Propulsion Conf. (2008)
Analyzing stiffness under torsion and bending loads
US 8,126,684 B2 Goel; Tushar et al.
Topology optimization for designing engineering product
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 27 December 2025