DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-9 and 16-17 are presented for examination.
Claims 10-15 are withdrawn.
This office action is in response to the election submitted on 27-MAR-2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/01/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/09/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/27/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically:
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill) “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, Judgments, and opinions.”
Further, the MPEP recites “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.”
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) “Mathematical Relationships A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. For example, pressure (p) can be described as the ratio between the magnitude of the normal force (F) and area of the surface on contact (A), or it can be set forth in the form of an equation such as p = F/A.”
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B) “Mathematical Formulas or Equations A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. For example, the phrase "determining a ratio of A to B" is merely using a textual replacement for the particular equation (ratio = A/B). Additionally, the phrase "calculating the force of the object by multiplying its mass by its acceleration" is using a textual replacement for the particular equation (F= ma).”
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) “Mathematical Calculations A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.”
obtaining a three-dimensional discretized computer model of a part in a three-dimensional discretized design space comprising three-dimensional geometrical elements;
The “obtaining” is not specified in the claim limitation and [0060] of the specification as published is used for interpreting how the “three-dimensional discretized computer model” is obatained.
[0060] “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 are obtained 202. In some implementations, obtaining the initial layout of the one or more cooling channels in the cooling mold can include loading a previously designed cooling mold, producing a cooling mold design in response user input, generating the cooling mold channel layout using the systems and techniques described further below with respect to FIGS. 11 and/or FIG. 18 , or a combination thereof. In some examples, the specification of the cooling channels can be included in the computer model of the mold. In other examples, the specification of the cooling channels can be obtained separately.”
The initial model can be obtained by using a previously designed cooling mold, based on user input, or the specification of the channels can be obtained separately. All of these ways for obtaining the data are recited at a high level of generality and can be interpreted as an observation. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably observe an object and in the visualize the object as a three-dimensional model. The “three-dimensional geometrical elements” could be reasonably be accomplished in the mind for a simple object by judgement or opinion. For example, one could observe the object and then form an opinion of which areas need additional cooling channels based on quadrants, which would amount to “three-dimensional geometrical elements”. The judgement would be informed by experience, such as thicker areas need more or less cooling than thinner areas of the object.
producing a signed distance field based on a geometry of the three-dimensional discretized computer model of the part as represented in the three-dimensional geometrical elements of the three-dimensional discretized design space; and
The element of the “signed distance field” is a known element in the art that is used in “discretized design space”. What the “signed distance field” is interpreted in view of the specification paragraph [0128].
“Referring again to FIG. 11 , at 1104, a signed distance field based on a geometry of the three-dimensional discretized computer model of the part as represented in the three-dimensional geometrical elements of the three-dimensional discretized design space is produced. The signed distance field measures how close every three-dimensional element (e.g., a voxel) in the design space is to the part. If ejector pins are included in the model, the signed distance field can measure how close every voxel is to the part or an ejector pin.”
The “signed distance field” is indicating how close the ejector pin is in the model. A person of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably estimate or form a judgement of how close the ejector pins are to certain portions of the model. By experience or opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art can realize that placing an ejector pin in an area will affect the surrounding area in this way. The area affected would be the portion denoted by the “signed distance field”. The “geometry of the three-dimensional discretized computer model” is observed and judgement is used to determine how the “part” would be affected by different locations of the ejector pin.
generating at least one non-branching cooling channel in a portion of the three-dimensional discretized design space using at least one predefined pattern and the signed distance field.
The “generating at least one non-branching cooling channel” is interpreted as determining where to place the “cooling channel”. A person of ordinary skill in the art can estimate where the best place to put the “non-branching cooling channel” in the model. The judgement can be based on experience and forming an opinion of the distance the “non-branching cooling channel” should be from the opinion. The “predefined pattern” could be a pattern such as a spiral or a zigzag. The “signed distance field” is the person of ordinary skill in the estimating the injector pins.
Therefore, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
No.
There are no additional elements, additional to the abstract idea itself, and therefore no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (in Step 2A Prong 2
Therefore, no meaningful limits are imposed on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
There are no additional elements, additional to the abstract idea itself, and therefore no additional elements which could provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (in Step 2B).
The claim is ineligible.
Claim 4 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process from claim 1 and the additional limitations:
obtaining a three-dimensional discretized computer model of a mold for the part, the three-dimensional discretized model comprising a mold core and a mold cavity, wherein the portion of the three-dimensional discretized design space corresponds to the mold core or the mold cavity; and
As discussed in claim 1 regarding the term of “obtaining” and in view of paragraph [0060] of the specification, the “mold for the part” can be obtained by using a previously designed cooling mold, based on user input, or the specification of the channels can be obtained separately. All of these ways for obtaining the “mold for the part” are recited at a high level of generality and can be interpreted as an observation. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably observe the “part” and visualize the corresponding mold. The “mold core and a mold cavity” can be estimated based on judgement by observing the part to be modeled. The different “portion” of the “design space” could be observing non uniform portions of the part and the associated mold would be changed based on judgment.
obtaining a parting plane of the mold in the three-dimensional discretized design space, wherein the parting plane lies on an X-Y plane of the three-dimensional discretized design space.
The “parting plane” is also estimated by judgement by observing the part. Estimating the parting plane to be near the middle of the Z direction is reasonable and can be done in the mind. A person could then reasonably estimate by judgement on where the parting plane would be placed with experience.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
No.
There are no additional elements, additional to the abstract idea itself, and therefore no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (in Step 2A Prong 2
Therefore, no meaningful limits are imposed on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
There are no additional elements, additional to the abstract idea itself, and therefore no additional elements which could provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (in Step 2B).
The claim is ineligible.
Claim 5 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process from claims 1 and 4 and the additional limitations:
traversing the three-dimensional discretized design space in a Z direction starting from an outermost Z position of the three-dimensional discretized computer model of the mold;
“Traversing” the “Z direction” can reasonably be done in the mind by a person of ordinary skill in the art. To perform the “traversing”, one would moving effectively evaluating the length of the model. When performing the evaluation, one could make a judgement base on the observed characteristics.
calculating, at each Z position, a cross-sectional area projected by the part on the X-Y plane; and
The “cross-sectional are” can be observed and estimated by evaluation. As the “cross-sectional area” changes based on size, a person of ordinary skill in the art could recognize the change.
locating the parting plane at a Z position where the calculated cross-sectional area is maximal.
The “maximal” location of the “cross-sectional area” can be determined by observation of the model and performing an estimation based on judgement.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
No.
There are no additional elements, additional to the abstract idea itself, and therefore no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (in Step 2A Prong 2
Therefore, no meaningful limits are imposed on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
There are no additional elements, additional to the abstract idea itself, and therefore no additional elements which could provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (in Step 2B).
The claim is ineligible.
Claim 8 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process from claims 1 and 4 and the additional limitations:
wherein the three-dimensional discretized computer model of the mold comprises a three-dimensional discretized computer model of one or more ejector pins, and
The “ejector pins” can be determined by observation of the model. A person of ordinary skill in the art would know the different effect of placement of “ejector pins”. The placement of the “ejector pins” would then be based on judgment formed from experience when placing “ejector pins”.
wherein the signed distance field is produced based on the geometry of the three-dimensional discretized computer model of the part and on the geometry of the three-dimensional discretized computer model of the one or more ejector pins.
A person of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably estimate or form a judgement of how close the ejector pins are to certain portions of the model. By experience or opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art can realize that placing an ejector pin in an area will affect the surrounding area in this way. The area affected would be the portion denoted by the “signed distance field”. The “geometry of the three-dimensional discretized computer model” is observed and judgement is used to determine how the “part” would be affected by different locations of the ejector pin.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
No.
There are no additional elements, additional to the abstract idea itself, and therefore no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (in Step 2A Prong 2
Therefore, no meaningful limits are imposed on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
There are no additional elements, additional to the abstract idea itself, and therefore no additional elements which could provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (in Step 2B).
The claim is ineligible.
Claim 16 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process from claim 1 and the additional limitations:
generating, according to the method of claim 1, at least one non-branching channel in a first portion of the three-dimensional discretized design space corresponding to a mold cavity; and generating, according to the method of claim 1, at least one non-branching channel in a second portion of the three-dimensional discretized design space corresponding to a mold core.
The “mold core and a mold cavity” can be estimated based on judgement by observing the part to be modeled. The “non-branching channel” will be placed throughout the mold based on the design. A person of ordinary skill in the art can estimate where to place “first portion” and “second portion” of the “non-branching channel” based on experience and judgement.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
No.
There are no additional elements, additional to the abstract idea itself, and therefore no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (in Step 2A Prong 2
Therefore, no meaningful limits are imposed on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
There are no additional elements, additional to the abstract idea itself, and therefore no additional elements which could provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (in Step 2B).
The claim is ineligible.
Claim 17 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process from claim 1 and claim 17 and the additional limitations:
obtaining a three-dimensional discretized computer model of a mold for the part, the three-dimensional discretized model comprising the mold core and the mold cavity; and
The “mold” can be estimated based on the observation of “the mold core and the mold cavity”. An overall shape of the “mold” can be determined based on judgment from a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Obtaining a parting plane of the mold in the three-dimensional discretized design space, wherein the parting plane lies on an X-Y plane of the three-dimensional discretized design space.
The “parting plane” is also estimated by judgement by observing the part. Estimating the parting plane to be near the middle of the Z direction is reasonable and can be done in the mind. A person could then reasonably estimate by judgement on where the parting plane would be placed with experience.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
No.
There are no additional elements, additional to the abstract idea itself, and therefore no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (in Step 2A Prong 2
Therefore, no meaningful limits are imposed on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
There are no additional elements, additional to the abstract idea itself, and therefore no additional elements which could provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (in Step 2B).
The claim is ineligible.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Clare et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0354454 A1 (hereinafter ‘Clare’) in view of
Gao et al., “Machine learning aided design of conformal cooling channels for injection molding” [Published online: 9 October 2021] (hereinafter ‘Gao’).
Regarding Claim 1: A method comprising:
Clare teaches obtaining a three-dimensional discretized computer model of a part in a three-dimensional discretized design space comprising three-dimensional geometrical elements; ([0007] Clare “…The randomised array of unit cells forms three-dimensional volume data may comprise iso-surfaces. The method may comprise rendering the iso-surfaces with polygons having faces and vertices to form a solid model of the stochastic structure. The solid model may be saved as an STL file or similar and imported to a printer or other additive manufacturing device or near-net shape manufacturing device and the stochastic structure manufactured…” [0038] Clare “…Referring now to FIG. 3 and a regular lattice shown in FIG. 3 a). Considering a unit cell (UC) in the shape of a cube. The length of each side can be described by ux, uy and uz. A UC is the initial regular structure that is periodically distributed within the desired design space…”)
Clare teaches producing a signed distance field based on a geometry of the three-dimensional discretized computer model of the part as represented in the three-dimensional geometrical elements of the three-dimensional discretized design space; and ([0017] Clare “…The three-dimensional volume data may be any one of the group comprising binary or distance field data or signed-distance field data…”)
Clare teaches generating at least one … cooling channel in a portion of the three-dimensional discretized design space using … the signed distance field. ([0074] Clare “…Cooling channels are formed through the stochastic structure to improve heat transfer to a coolant passing through the cooling channels from the pressure and suction walls 102, 103 of the blade, particularly a turbine blade 48…”)
Clare does not appear to explicitly disclose
one non-branching cooling channel
at least one predefined pattern and
However, Gao teaches one non-branching cooling channel and at least one predefined pattern and (Pg. 1187 right col 1st paragraph and Fig. 4 Gao “…With these considerations and design parameters selection procedure, W and lm are selected as the design parameters for spiral and zig-zag cooling channels…”)
PNG
media_image1.png
408
870
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Clare and Gao are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, modeling structures.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the generating at least one cooling channel in a portion of the three-dimensional discretized design space using the signed distance field as disclosed by Clare by one non-branching cooling channel and at least one predefined pattern as disclosed by Gao.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the design when implementing a cooling channel as discussed on pgs. 1184 right col last paragraph – 1185 left col 1st paragraph in the background of Gao “…The design guideline of the conformal cooling channels with various topological designs is first proposed by Xu et al. (2001). To improve the performance, multiple cooling channel topologies were combined for different types of cooling surfaces (Khan et al., 2014). The performance such as the flow rate distribution, cooling time, and temperature variance were studied to evaluate the conformal cooling channel design (Wang et al., 2015). It was found that the spiral design can achieve a better performance than the centroidal Voronoi diagram (CVD), which is proposed by Wang et al. (2011) …”
Claims 4 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Clare et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0354454 A1 (hereinafter ‘Clare’) in view of
Gao et al., “Machine learning aided design of conformal cooling channels for injection molding” [Published online: 9 October 2021] (hereinafter ‘Gao’).
Mahshid et al., “Effect of mold compliance on dimensional variations of precision molded components in multi-cavity injection molding” [Published online: 28 April 2021] (hereinafter ‘Mahshid’).
Regarding Claim 4: Clare and Gao teach The method of any claim 1, further comprising:
Gao teach obtaining a three-dimensional discretized computer model of a mold for the part, (Pg. 1187 left col Gao “…Typically, the cooling efficiency of a spiral or zig-zag conformal cooling channel is mainly affected by half of the part thickness l p, coolant Reynold number Re, channel diameter d, cooling channel pitch width W, and cooling channel pitch to mold surface distance lm. For porous conformal cooling channels, the most influential parameters besides l p are the porosity of the mold φ, and the Reynold number Re. However, there are two reasons that Re and d are impractical to be varied in TVM design. First, the variation of Re requires designing multiple coolant inlets for different flow rates, which significantly increases the complexity of the cooling system. Second, the channel diameter d is coupled with lm, W, and Re. An example is shown in Fig. 3 to explain the coupling effect of Re, lm, W, and d. As the channel diameter varied from d1 to d2, the original pitch to pitch distance W1 and pitch to mold surface distance lm1 are forced to be adjusted to W2 and lm2…”)
Clare and Gao do not appear to explicitly disclose
the three-dimensional discretized model comprising a mold core and a mold cavity, wherein the portion of the three-dimensional discretized design space corresponds to the mold core or the mold cavity; and
obtaining a parting plane of the mold in the three-dimensional discretized design space, wherein the parting plane lies on an X-Y plane of the three-dimensional discretized design space.
However, Mahshid teaches the three-dimensional discretized model comprising a mold core and a mold cavity, wherein the portion of the three-dimensional discretized design space corresponds to the mold core or the mold cavity; and (Pg. 16 left col 2nd paragraph Mahshid “…For testing possible effects of mold thermal expansion on the misalignment of corresponding cores and cavities, the educational version of Moldex3D software with the implementation of the mold deformation was used to simulate the injection molding process and predict mold displacement errors. Mesh matching technique and equal mesh were employed on all contact surfaces in order to allow for mold deformation analysis. Due to the non-symmetrical geometry and boundary conditions (centering elements), a full 3D simulation of the mold was performed including runner, molded parts, cooling channels and the two mold plates…”)
Mahshid teaches obtaining a parting plane of the mold in the three-dimensional discretized design space, wherein the parting plane lies on an X-Y plane of the three-dimensional discretized design space. (Pg. 15 left col Mahshid “…In the figure, small circles highlights the cavities for part collection. The possible displacements for the mold’s plates in the parting plane are in x and y directions plus rotational motion around z axis. When occurring displacements for the mold’s plates, they are the same for all cavities due to translational motion…”)
Clare, Gao, and Mahshid are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, modeling structures.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the obtaining a three-dimensional discretized computer model of a mold for the part as disclosed by Clare and Gao by the three-dimensional discretized model comprising a mold core and a mold cavity, wherein the portion of the three-dimensional discretized design space corresponds to the mold core or the mold cavity and obtaining a parting plane of the mold in the three-dimensional discretized design space, wherein the parting plane lies on an X-Y plane of the three-dimensional discretized design space as disclosed by Mahshid.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to better understand the core and cavity of the model in order to achieve better quality as discussed on pg. 12 left col last paragraph “…Monitoring the momentary separation of mold core and cavity plates has been found to have significant effect on variation of part weight in an online monitoring system for injection-molding process to achieve consistent part quality [9,10]. In 2003, Min discovered that indirect control variables such as part weight and nozzle/cavity pressure can be used as decision-parameters for monitoring the quality of molded parts in process [11]…”
Regarding Claim 16: A method comprising:
Clare and Gao teach generating, according to the method of claim 1,
Gao teaches at least one non-branching channel in a first portion of the three-dimensional discretized design space… (Pg. 1195 right col last paragraph - pg. 1197 left col 1st paragraph Gao “…The part surface temperature and the temperature variation simulation results are shown in Fig. 11c-f. Comparing to conventional conformal cooling channels, a significant reduction of temperature variance on the total cooling surface within the same injection cycle time is achieved byMLACCD cooling channels as shown in Fig. 11e-f. ForMLACCD cooling channels, the temperature differences among the regions with different thickness values as shown in Fig. 11c are 0.54, 2, and 4.2 °C for spiral, zig-zag, and porous cooling surface, respectively…”)
Clare and Gao teach generating, according to the method of claim 1,
Gao teaches at least one non-branching channel in a second portion of the three-dimensional discretized design space … (Fig. 11 Pg. 1197 left col 1st paragraph Gao “…This results in a higher temperature variance on the thickness varied regions of the part comparing to MLACCD since the MLACCD cooling channels are conformal to both the part surface and the thickness distribution of the part geometry. Second, the coolant temperature differences between the inlets and outlets of the cooling system are reduced inMLACCD.As shown in Fig. 11g-h, themaximum temperature rise between coolant inlet and outlet is 3.65 °C while the value for conventional designed conformal cooling channels is 4.02 °C. This smaller coolant temperature rise is due to the reduced total length of channels in MLACCD…”)
PNG
media_image2.png
286
494
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Clare and Gao do not appear to explicitly disclose
corresponding to a mold cavity; and
corresponding to a mold core.
However, Mahshid teaches corresponding to a mold cavity; and …corresponding to a mold core (Pg. 16 right col 1st paragraph Mahshid “…From FE simulations, it is shown that the packing phase created lower cavity pressure for this research due to the special design of the melt entrance. To obtain an accurate analysis of mold deformation, appropriate setting of the boundary conditions was needed to be employed for each cavity and core plates. With respect to centering element numbering shown in Fig. 6, displacements were fixed (0 mm displacement) on the appropriate nodes in x, y, z directions as listed in Table 2…”)
Clare, Gao, and Mahshid are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, modeling structures.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the at least one non-branching channel in a first portion of the three-dimensional discretized design space and at least one non-branching channel in a second portion of the three-dimensional discretized design space as disclosed by Clare and Gao by corresponding to a mold cavity and corresponding to a mold core as disclosed by Mahshid.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to better understand the core and cavity of the model in order to achieve better quality as discussed on pg. 12 left col last paragraph “…Monitoring the momentary separation of mold core and cavity plates has been found to have significant effect on variation of part weight in an online monitoring system for injection-molding process to achieve consistent part quality [9,10]. In 2003, Min discovered that indirect control variables such as part weight and nozzle/cavity pressure can be used as decision-parameters for monitoring the quality of molded parts in process [11] …”
Regarding Claim 17: Clare, Gao, and Mahshid teach The method of claim 16 comprising
Mahshid teaches obtaining a three-dimensional discretized computer model of a mold for the part, the three-dimensional discretized model comprising the mold core and the mold cavity; and (Pg. 16 left col 2nd paragraph Mahshid “…For testing possible effects of mold thermal expansion on the misalignment of corresponding cores and cavities, the educational version of Moldex3D software with the implementation of the mold deformation was used to simulate the injection molding process and predict mold displacement errors. Mesh matching technique and equal mesh were employed on all contact surfaces in order to allow for mold deformation analysis. Due to the non-symmetrical geometry and boundary conditions (centering elements), a full 3D simulation of the mold was performed including runner, molded parts, cooling channels and the two mold plates…”)
Mahshid teaches obtaining a parting plane of the mold in the three-dimensional discretized design space, wherein the parting plane lies on an X-Y plane of the three-dimensional discretized design space. (Pg. 15 left col Mahshid “…In the figure, small circles highlights the cavities for part collection. The possible displacements for the mold’s plates in the parting plane are in x and y directions plus rotational motion around z axis. When occurring displacements for the mold’s plates, they are the same for all cavities due to translational motion…”)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Clare et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0354454 A1 (hereinafter ‘Clare’) in view of
Gao et al., “Machine learning aided design of conformal cooling channels for injection molding” [Published online: 9 October 2021] (hereinafter ‘Gao’).
Mahshid et al., “Effect of mold compliance on dimensional variations of precision molded components in multi-cavity injection molding” [Published online: 28 April 2021] (hereinafter ‘Mahshid’) further in view of
Régnier et al., “A Simplified Method to Determine the 3D Orientation of an Injection Molded Fiber-Filled Polymer” [2008] (hereinafter ‘Régnier’).
Regarding Claim 5: Clare, Gao, and Mahshid teach The method of claim 4, wherein obtaining the parting plane comprises:
Mahshid teaches locating the parting plane at a Z position where the calculated cross-sectional area is maximal. (Pg. 21 left col 2nd paragraph Mahshid “…The measurement method of inductance probes mounted on the sides of the mold was able to isolate and quantify the mold deflection as verified relative to dimensional variations of molded parts. Mold displacement at the parting plane can thereby be estimated precisely to be up to 12 μm for the testing mold due to the thermal expansion, and is confirmed by FE simulation. The errors induced by milling and finishing of cavities and cores has a contribution to the extent of 10–15 μm. The results from FE analysis however, seem to indicate that the warpage of the molded parts themselves played a greater role than the misalignment of mold’s plates in determining their dimensional variations for the specific part geometry studied in this research. As stated previously, a further experiment is needed to fully prove this…”)
Clare, Gao, and Mahshid do not appear to explicitly disclose
traversing the three-dimensional discretized design space in a Z direction starting from an outermost Z position of the three-dimensional discretized computer model of the mold;
calculating, at each Z position, a cross-sectional area projected by the part on the X-Y plane; and
However, Régnier teaches traversing the three-dimensional discretized design space in a Z direction starting from an outermost Z position of the three-dimensional discretized computer model of the mold; (Pg. 2161 left col last paragraph Régnier “…If a cross-section normal to axis Z is considered, the intersection of a fiber with a section plane is an ellipse (see Fig. 1)…”)
PNG
media_image3.png
310
474
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Régnier teaches calculating, at each Z position, a cross-sectional area projected by the part on the X-Y plane; and (Pg. 2161 left col last paragraph Régnier “…The use of an image analysis software enables to identify each fiber as an ellipse and automatically determines the ellipse center coordinates (xc,yc), its major and minor axes a and b respectively, as well as its inplane orientation angle Φ…”)
Clare, Gao, Mahshid, and Régnier are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, modeling structures.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the locating the parting plane at a Z position where the calculated cross-sectional area is maximal as disclosed by Clare, Gao, and Mahshid by traversing the three-dimensional discretized design space in a Z direction starting from an outermost Z position of the three-dimensional discretized computer model of the mold and calculating, at each Z position, a cross-sectional area projected by the part on the X-Y plane as disclosed by Régnier.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to predict properties of the materials as discussed in the abstract of Régnier “…To predict the properties of such composite materials, a full 3D fiber orientation characterization is required…”
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Clare et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0354454 A1 (hereinafter ‘Clare’) in view of
Gao et al., “Machine learning aided design of conformal cooling channels for injection molding” [Published online: 9 October 2021] (hereinafter ‘Gao’).
Mahshid et al., “Effect of mold compliance on dimensional variations of precision molded components in multi-cavity injection molding” [Published online: 28 April 2021] (hereinafter ‘Mahshid’) further in view of
Wang et al., “Research on automatic generation technology of ejector pin for injection mold” [Published online: 15 May 2020] (hereinafter ‘Wang’).
Regarding Claim 8: Clare, Gao, and Mahshid teach The method of claim 4,
Clare teaches wherein the three-dimensional discretized computer model of the mold comprises a three-dimensional discretized computer… and wherein the signed distance field is produced based on the geometry of the three-dimensional discretized computer model of the part and on the geometry of the three-dimensional discretized computer… ([0007] Clare “…The randomised array of unit cells forms three-dimensional volume data may comprise iso-surfaces. The method may comprise rendering the iso-surfaces with polygons having faces and vertices to form a solid model of the stochastic structure. The solid model may be saved as an STL file or similar and imported to a printer or other additive manufacturing device or near-net shape manufacturing device and the stochastic structure manufactured…” [0038] Clare “…Referring now to FIG. 3 and a regular lattice shown in FIG. 3 a). Considering a unit cell (UC) in the shape of a cube. The length of each side can be described by ux, uy and uz. A UC is the initial regular structure that is periodically distributed within the desired design space…” [0017] Clare “…The three-dimensional volume data may be any one of the group comprising binary or distance field data or signed-distance field data…”)
Clare, Gao, and Mahshid do not appear to explicitly disclose
model of one or more ejector pins,
model of the one or more ejector pins
However, Wang teaches model of one or more ejector pins and model of the one or more ejector pins (Pg. 488 right col last paragraph Wang “…As shown in arrow B in Fig. 4, when ejector pins are arranged, the designer first selects the specification of the ejector pin according to the size of the plastic part: according to the mold design experience, generally, when the plastic part is large, the relatively large diameter ejector pin will be selected (for example, D = 8, 9, 10 mm, D is the diameter of the ejector pin); when the plastic part is small, the relatively small ejector pin will be selected (for example, D = 4, 5, 6 mm)…”)
Clare, Gao, Mahshid, and Wang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, modeling structures.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the wherein the three-dimensional discretized computer model of the mold comprises a three-dimensional discretized computer and wherein the signed distance field is produced based on the geometry of the three-dimensional discretized computer model of the part and on the geometry of the three-dimensional discretized computer as disclosed by Clare, Gao, and Mahshid by model of one or more ejector pins and model of the one or more ejector pins as disclosed by Wang.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the design of the ejector pin as discussed on pg. 486 left col 2nd paragraph by Wang “…In light of these problems, a recognized tool that automates the design process of the ejector pin is deemed necessary. In the field of research, few studies dedicated to automating the design of the ejector pin have been developed. On the basis of the problems described, the narrow slot feature recognition algorithm is presented to realize automatic recognition of the narrow slot feature. The goal is to design the ejector pin automatically…”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 6-7, and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 4-5, 8, and 16-17 are rejected.
Claims 2-3, 6-7, and 9 are objected to.
Claims 10-15 and 18-20 are withdrawn.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN E JOHANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-3PM.
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 5712723652. 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.
/JOHN E JOHANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights