DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 20 have been presented for examination.
This office action is in response to submission of the application on 10/11/2022.
Claims 1 – 20 have been considered under “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (7 January 2019). Claim 1 (and similarly claim 11) is viewed as comprising eligible subject matter at Step 2B. Specifically, there is recited “moving individual portions of the one or more cooling channels” which does not explicitly recite math, nor can be reasonably performed in the mind, nor does it cover well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Further, the “moving individual portions” and “repeating the producing” and “providing” as an ordered combination effectuate the production of an optimized layout of one or more cooling channels in the obtained three-dimensional computer model. Therefore, the claims recite an inventive concept outside of any recited abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are deemed eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 3 – 10 and 13 – 20 do not recite limitations which modify the claim 1 “moving individual portions of the one or more cooling channels” to comprise anything other than “individual portions”. Therefore, they are deemed eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons as claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter, subject to overcoming the 101 rejection:
None of the prior art of record taken individually or in combination discloses the claim 1 (and similarly claim 11, and claims 2 – 10 and 12 – 20 by incorporation) a method comprising the step of: “moving individual portions of the one or more cooling channels toward hotter portions of the cavity surface, without moving any branch junctions of the one or more cooling channels and while keeping one or more diameters of the one or more cooling channels constant, wherein the moving comprises limiting a maximum allowed movement of the individual portions based on the one or more diameters”, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claims. It is for these reasons that the applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
Guo, L. “A Study On The Cooling Channels Total Design of Rapid Prototyping Method Using Genetic Algorithms” teaches moving individual portions of cooling channels during an optimization (see Figure 2.7
PNG
media_image1.png
340
517
media_image1.png
Greyscale
). However, does not appear to explicitly disclose: moving individual portions of the one or more cooling channels toward hotter portions of the cavity surface, without moving any branch junctions of the one or more cooling channels and while keeping one or more diameters of the one or more cooling channels constant, wherein the moving comprises limiting a maximum allowed movement of the individual portions based on the one or more diameter.
Koresawa et al. “Autonomous Arrangement of Cooling Channels Layout in Injection Molding” teaches moving individual portion of a cooling channel based on the gradient of the temperature (see Page 5, Left). However, does not appear to explicitly disclose: moving individual portions of the one or more cooling channels toward hotter portions of the cavity surface, without moving any branch junctions of the one or more cooling channels and while keeping one or more diameters of the one or more cooling channels constant, wherein the moving comprises limiting a maximum allowed movement of the individual portions based on the one or more diameter.
Zuo et al. (US 2019/0354656) teaches sensitivities for all elements determined and used to modify/refine the channel. However, does not appear to explicitly disclose: moving individual portions of the one or more cooling channels toward hotter portions of the cavity surface, without moving any branch junctions of the one or more cooling channels and while keeping one or more diameters of the one or more cooling channels constant, wherein the moving comprises limiting a maximum allowed movement of the individual portions based on the one or more diameter.
Pirc et al. “Cooling channel optimization for injection molding” teaches a cooling channels with individual portions being moved to minimize temperature variation (see Figure 9) . However, does not appear to explicitly disclose: moving individual portions of the one or more cooling channels toward hotter portions of the cavity surface, without moving any branch junctions of the one or more cooling channels and while keeping one or more diameters of the one or more cooling channels constant, wherein the moving comprises limiting a maximum allowed movement of the individual portions based on the one or more diameter.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Dependent claim 2 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a process) method, comprising: Claim 1 producing data regarding temperatures of a cavity surface of the cooling mold in contact with the part using a numerical simulation of a molding process applied to the cooling mold using the one or more cooling channels integrated into the cooling mold; moving individual portions of the one or more cooling channels toward hotter portions of the cavity surface, without moving any branch junctions of the one or more cooling channels and while keeping one or more diameters of the one or more cooling channels constant, wherein the moving comprises limiting a maximum allowed movement of the individual portions based on the one or more diameters; repeating the producing and the moving multiple times to produce multiple different layouts for the one or more cooling channels, wherein an input cooling-channel layout for each subsequent repetition of the producing is an output cooling-channel layout from a prior repetition of the moving, and each of the multiple different layouts has an associated value for a weighted sum metric comprising (i) a first metric for an average temperature of the cavity surface in contact with the part, and (ii) a second metric for a statistical dispersion of temperature variance across the cavity surface in contact with the part; and Claim 2 wherein the individual portions comprise node elements representing the one or more cooling channels in the layouts, and the moving comprises, for each node element of the node elements: determining sensitivity vectors for respective part elements used for the numerical simulation, wherein each sensitivity vector of the sensitivity vectors depends on (i) a directional vector between the node element and the part element, (ii) a temperature at the part element, and (iii) an angular difference between a normal vector for the part element and the directional vector; combining the sensitivity vectors for the respective part elements to form a combined sensitivity vector for the node element, wherein contributions to the combined sensitivity vector are adjusted based on respective sizes of, and respective distances to the node element from, the part elements; and changing a location of the node element in accordance with the combined sensitivity vector and a movement factor for the combined sensitivity vector, wherein the movement factor has been normalized based on combined sensitivity vectors formed for the node elements. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “producing data … using a numerical simulation” amounts to modeling actions resulting in outputs (i.e., producing data) using wholly mathematical calculations. The “determining sensitivity vectors” and “combining the sensitivity vectors” and “changing a location of the node element” all explicitly recite operations on mathematical quantities (i.e., vectors, node elements, etc.) which further limit the parent claim “moving individual portions” such that it explicitly recites math. Examiner notes that the “node elements” are related to graph theory and used to represent the cooling channel itself (i.e., a continuous path with an input and output) (see the instant application Paragraph 152 “The shortest path method can use any suitable path search algorithm to determine 10 the shortest path between the inlet and outlet nodes. For example, a Dijkstra algorithm or a Breadth first search method can be used.”). Further, while the claim 1 “moving” is deemed to be merely based on math since it requires no more than moving “individual portions” of the cooling channels, the claim 2 “moving” explicitly recites “node elements” in combination with “changing a location of the node element” to effectuate the parent claim “moving”. Therefore, the claim 1 “repeating the producing and moving” amounts to multiple mathematical concepts in view of the further limited “modifying” by the limitations of claim 2. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: Claim 1 obtaining a three-dimensional computer model of a cooling mold for a part and a specification of an initial layout of one or more cooling channels integrated into the cooling mold; Claim 1 providing at least one of the multiple different layouts for the one or more cooling channels having a best associated value for the weighted sum metric. The “obtaining” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality, and since the “producing” step relies on the received elements in a generic manner (see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “providing” amounts to insignificant data outputting since it is recited at a high-level of generality with regard to the manner in which the layouts are provided. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The recited “obtaining” and “providing” covers well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since it is generic and covers receiving and outputting data by any electronics means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the “obtaining” and “providing” requires no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 12 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a machine) system, comprising: Claim 11 producing data regarding temperatures of a cavity surface of the cooling mold in contact with the part using a numerical simulation of a molding process applied to the cooling mold using the one or more cooling channels integrated into the cooling mold; moving individual portions of the one or more cooling channels toward hotter portions of the cavity surface, without moving any branch junctions of the one or more cooling channels and while keeping one or more diameters of the one or more cooling channels constant, wherein the moving comprises limiting a maximum allowed movement of the individual portions based on the one or more diameters; repeating the producing and the moving multiple times to produce multiple different layouts for the one or more cooling channels, wherein an input cooling-channel layout for each subsequent repetition of the producing is an output cooling-channel layout from a prior repetition of the moving, and each of the multiple different layouts has an associated value for a weighted sum metric comprising (i) a first metric for an average temperature of the cavity surface in contact with the part, and (ii) a second metric for a statistical dispersion of temperature variance across the cavity surface in contact with the part; and Claim 12 wherein the individual portions comprise node elements representing the one or more cooling channels in the layouts, and the moving comprises, for each node element of the node elements: determining sensitivity vectors for respective part elements used for the numerical simulation, wherein each sensitivity vector of the sensitivity vectors depends on (i) a directional vector between the node element and the part element, (ii) a temperature at the part element, and (iii) an angular difference between a normal vector for the part element and the directional vector; combining the sensitivity vectors for the respective part elements to form a combined sensitivity vector for the node element, wherein contributions to the combined sensitivity vector are adjusted based on respective sizes of, and respective distances to the node element from, the part elements; and changing a location of the node element in accordance with the combined sensitivity vector and a movement factor for the combined sensitivity vector, wherein the movement factor has been normalized based on combined sensitivity vectors formed for the node elements. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “producing data … using a numerical simulation” amounts to modeling actions resulting in outputs (i.e., producing data) using wholly mathematical calculations. The “determining sensitivity vectors” and “combining the sensitivity vectors” and “changing a location of the node element” all explicitly recite operations on mathematical quantities (i.e., vectors, node elements, etc.), and which further modify the parent claim “moving individual portions” to explicitly recite math. Examiner notes that “node elements” involve graph theory and are directly related to the cooling channels (i.e., a continuous path with an input and output). The “repeating the producing and moving” amounts to multiple mathematical concepts. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: Claim 11 one or more processors; and a computer-readable medium storing instructions that cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising; obtaining a three-dimensional computer model of a cooling mold for a part and a specification of an initial layout of one or more cooling channels integrated into the cooling mold; Claim 1 providing at least one of the multiple different layouts for the one or more cooling channels having a best associated value for the weighted sum metric. The “processors” and “computer-readable medium” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The “obtaining” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality, and since the “producing” step relies on the received elements in a generic manner (see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “providing” amounts to insignificant data outputting since it is recited at a high-level of generality with regard to the manner in which the layouts are provided. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “processors” and “computer-readable medium” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The recited “obtaining” and “providing” covers well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since it is generic and covers receiving and outputting data by any electronics means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the “obtaining” and “providing” requires no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-8988. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am to 6pm.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER/ExaminerArt Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187