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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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.
2. Claims 4, 6, 16, and 29 are 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 4, 6 and 29is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
As per Claim 16, it recites the limitation “satisfies the one or more design criteria” which is vague and indefinite since " satisfies " does not set a range.
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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1) The claim 1-15 recite steps or acts including providing the first or second three dimensional shape of the modeled object; thus, the claims are to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. The claim 16 recites steps or acts providing the shape of the modeled object; thus, the claims are to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. The claim 17-20 are directed to an apparatus comprising processors and a computer-readable medium which is a product therefore is a statutory category of invention.
(Step 2A – Prong One) For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. Abstract ideas are bolded.
The claim 1 and 17 recite:
obtaining, by a computer aided design program, a design space for a modeled object, for which a corresponding physical structure is to be manufactured, and one or more design criteria for the modeled object (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use);
iteratively modifying, by the computer aided design program, a first three- dimensional shape of the modeled object in the design space in accordance with the one or more design criteria (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion as described), wherein the iteratively modifying comprises
forming a second three-dimensional shape of the modeled object based on the first three-dimensional shape of the modeled object (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion as described), wherein the second three-dimensional shape conforms to a predefined shape-type requirement (insignificant extra-solution activity –“apply it"), and
penalizing modifications of the first three-dimensional shape that deviate from the second three-dimensional shape (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion as described); and
providing, by the computer aided design program, the first or second three dimensional shape of the modeled object for use in manufacturing the physical structure using one or more computer-controlled manufacturing systems (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting and/or field of use).
The claim 16 recites:
obtaining, by a computer aided design program, a design space for a modeled object, for which a corresponding physical structure is to be manufactured, and one or more design criteria for the modeled object (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use);
determining, based on the one or more design criteria, a topology optimization objective function and one or more constraints (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion as described);
determining a function to be minimized (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion as described), wherein the function combines the topology optimization objective function and the one or more constraints, the function comprising a penalty parameter for each of the one or more constraints (insignificant extra-solution activity – field of use);
initializing each of the penalty parameters for the one or more constraints using a constraint-specific weight, a shape gradient of the respective constraint, and a shape gradient of the objective function (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion as described);
minimizing the function (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion as described), wherein minimizing the function comprises adaptively updating the penalty parameters until convergence to obtain a shape of the modeled object that minimizes the function and satisfies the one or more design criteria (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use); and
providing, by the computer aided design program, the shape of the modeled object for use in manufacturing the physical structure using one or more computer-controlled manufacturing systems (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting and/or field of use).
Therefore, the limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, an abstract idea.
(Step 2A – Prong Two: integration into practical application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements of “A system comprising: one or more processors; and a computer-readable medium storing instructions that cause the one or more processors to perform operations” (Claim 17) which is recited at high level generality and recited so generally that they represent more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, the additional elements of “computer”/”processor” does not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) is not applied with any particular machine (except for generic computer components), (3) does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (4) is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation of “a computer aided design program” (Claim 1 and 16-17) is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 16 recites the additional limitation of “wherein the function combines the topology optimization objective function and the one or more constraints, the function comprising a penalty parameter for each of the one or more constraints” (insignificant extra-solution activity – field of use and/or “apply it”) and “wherein minimizing the function comprises adaptively updating the penalty parameters until convergence to obtain a shape of the modeled object that minimizes the function and satisfies the one or more design criteria” (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use and/or “apply it”) is an insignificant extra-solution activity for the act of outputting itself , is equivalent to “apply it”, and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Further claim 1 and 16-17 recite the limitation which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering/outputting (see MPEP 2106.05(g)): (Claim 1 and 16-17) “obtaining, by a computer aided design program, a design space for a modeled object, for which a corresponding physical structure is to be manufactured, and one or more design criteria for the modeled object” (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use);
(Claim 1 and 16-17) “providing, by the computer aided design program, the first or second three dimensional shape of the modeled object for use in manufacturing the physical structure using one or more computer-controlled manufacturing systems” (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting and/or field of use).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
(Step 2B - inventive concept) The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “A system comprising: one or more processors; and a computer-readable medium storing instructions that cause the one or more processors to perform operations” (Claim 17) which is recited at high level generality and recited so generally that they represent more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The additional limitation of “a computer aided design program” (Claim 1 and 16-17) is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 16 recites the additional limitation which is an insignificant extra-solution activity for the act of outputting itself , is equivalent to “apply it”, and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)): “wherein the function combines the topology optimization objective function and the one or more constraints, the function comprising a penalty parameter for each of the one or more constraints” (insignificant extra-solution activity – field of use and/or “apply it”) and “wherein minimizing the function comprises adaptively updating the penalty parameters until convergence to obtain a shape of the modeled object that minimizes the function and satisfies the one or more design criteria” (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use and/or “apply it”).
Further claim 1 and 16-17 recite the limitation which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) which is the element that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, such as storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05 (d) II iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93) and receiving or transmitting data (MPEP 2106.05 (d) II i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added))): (Claim 1 and 16-17) “obtaining, by a computer aided design program, a design space for a modeled object, for which a corresponding physical structure is to be manufactured, and one or more design criteria for the modeled object” (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use);
(Claim 1 and 16-17) “providing, by the computer aided design program, the first or second three dimensional shape of the modeled object for use in manufacturing the physical structure using one or more computer-controlled manufacturing systems” (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting and/or field of use).
Further dependent claims 2-15 and 18-20 recite:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein forming the second three-dimensional shape comprises:
extracting a graph from the first three-dimensional shape of the modeled object (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use); and
generating the second three-dimensional shape from the graph (a mental process), wherein the predefined shape-type requirement is that the second three-dimensional shape is a network of beams. (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use)
3. The method of claim 2, wherein generating the second three- dimensional shape from the graph comprises: generating each of the beams of the network of beams from a respective edge of the graph (a mental process), wherein each of the beams is assigned a circular cross-section of uniform radius along the beam. (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use)
4. The method of claim 2, wherein the generating comprises one or more of:
i) limiting a maximum and/or a minimum value of a beam cross-section of each of the beams of the network of beams (a mental process);
ii) snapping an angle between connected beams to a snapping angle closest to the angle between the connected beams (a mental process), wherein the snapping angle is equal to a specified angle value or a multiple of the specified angle value; (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use and/or “apply it”) or
iii) modifying a cross-section of one or more beams of the network of beams to decrease cross-section differences between substantially collinear beams (a mental process).
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the generating comprises the snapping, which comprises solving an optimization problem on the graph using an objective function that measures differences between i) an angle between connected edges of the graph and ii) the closest snapping angle (a mental process).
6. The method of claim 4, wherein the generating comprises the modifying, which comprises iteratively updating a radius of each beam taking into account the angle between a respective edge in the graph and edges connected to the respective edge, using a higher contribution from connected edges that are substantially collinear (a mental process).
7. The method of claim 2, wherein the first three-dimensional shape is stored as a shape boundary representation, and wherein the penalizing comprises applying a beam network constraint that penalizes a difference between the network of beams and the shape boundary representation (a mental process).
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the iteratively modifying comprises performing an iterative topology optimization process and increasing a weight of the beam network constraint at least at an end portion of the iterative topology optimization process (a mental process).
9. The method of claim 7, wherein the beam network constraint comprises: a normalization factor that depends on a volume of the design space and on a characteristic size; and a fall-off function that limits an influence of the beam network constraint. (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use and/or “apply it”)
10. The method of claim 9, wherein the fall-off function is a smoothed Heaviside function that limits the influence of the beam network constraint up to a predetermined distance away from the network of beams. (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use and/or “apply it”)
11. The method of claim 9, wherein the beam network constraint is approximated using a shape-differentiable constraint. (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use and/or “apply it”)
12. The method of claim 11, wherein the iteratively modifying comprises iteratively: performing a shape gradient descent until convergence using a function that combines a topology optimization objective function and one or more constraints (mathematical concepts and a mental process), wherein the one or more constraints comprise the shape-differentiable constraint (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use and/or “apply it”); and updating respective penalty parameters of the one or more constraints. (mathematical concepts and a mental process)
13. The method of claim 12, comprising: initializing each of the penalty parameters of the one or more constraints using a constraint-specific weight, a shape gradient of the respective constraint, and a shape gradient of the objective function. (mathematical concepts and a mental process)
14. The method of claim 2, wherein one or more beams are assigned a non- circular cross-section, the generating comprising: determining locally optimal orientations for each of the one or more beams using i) a shape of the first three-dimensional shape along a respective edge of the graph, or ii) directions of forces acting on each of the one or more beams, the directions of forces determined from force fields for the first three-dimensional shape. (a mental process)
15. The method of claim 2, wherein generating the second three- dimensional shape from the graph comprises: generating each of the beams of the network of beams from a respective edge of the graph, wherein each of the beams is a curved beam generated by fitting a curve to approximate a medial axis of a portion of the first 3D shape for each respective edge of the graph. (mathematical concepts and a mental process)
18. The system of claim 17, wherein extracting a graph from the first three- dimensional shape of the modeled object; and generating the second three-dimensional shape from the graph, (a mental process) wherein the predefined shape-type requirement is that the second three-dimensional shape is a network of beams. (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use and/or “apply it”)
19. The system of claim 18, wherein generating the second three- dimensional shape from the graph comprises: generating each of the beams of the network of beams from a respective edge of the graph (a mental process), wherein each of the beams is assigned a circular cross-section of uniform radius along the beam. (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use and/or “apply it”)
20. The system of claim 18, wherein the generating comprises one or more of: i) limiting a maximum and/or a minimum value of a beam cross-section of each of the beams of the network of beams; ii) snapping an angle between connected beams to a snapping angle closest to the angle between the connected beams, wherein the snapping angle is equal to a specified angle value or a multiple of the specified angle value; or iii) modifying a cross-section of one or more beams of the network of beams to decrease cross-section differences between substantially collinear beams. (mathematical concepts and a mental process)
Considering the claim both individually and in combination, there is no element or combination of elements recited contains any “inventive concept” or adds “significantly more” to transform the abstract concept into a patent-eligible application.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
4. Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. ("Isogeometric topological shape optimization using dual evolution with boundary integral equation and level sets”), in view of Thore et al. ("Penalty regulation of overhang in topology optimization for additive manufacturing”), and further in view of Bandara et al. (US 2020/0150623 A1).
As per Claim 1 and 17, Lee et al. teaches a method/ system comprising: one or more processors; and a computer-readable medium storing instructions that cause the one or more processors to perform operations (Abstract, Section 1 on pg. 88-89, “computer aided design (CAD)”, “using a dual evolution scheme, an isogeometric topological shape optimization method is proposed”) comprising:
obtaining, by a computer aided design program, a design space for a modeled object, for which a corresponding physical structure is to be manufactured, and one or more design criteria for the modeled object (Section 1 pg. 88-89; Section 3, pg. 90-91, Fig. 1, “Design domains”, “a shape DSA is performed at fixed grids using the isogeometric BIEM and the obtained shape sensitivity is utilized to update the level sets.”);
iteratively modifying, by the computer aided design program, a first three- dimensional shape of the modeled object in the design space in accordance with the one or more design criteria (Section 5, steps (1)-(8) on the left column of pg. 93, Fig. 4 “optimization process”: iteratively updating a level-set function representing a first shape via Hamilton-Jacobi advection using shape design sensitivity computed on fixed grids until a convergence criterion is satisfied), wherein the iteratively modifying comprises
forming a second three-dimensional shape of the modeled object based on the first three-dimensional shape of the modeled object, wherein the second three-dimensional shape conforms to a predefined shape-type requirement (Section 2.3, Eq. 10 on pg. 90; Section 5, steps (5)-(6) on the left column of pg. 93: at each iteration, the implicit geometry represented by the level sets is transformed into parametric NURBS curves wherein the NURBS curves (corresponding to the limitation “second three-dimensional shape of the modeled object”) are derived from the current level-set shape (corresponding to the limitation “first three-dimensional shape of the modeled object”) at each iteration through the energy functional matching process that minimizes the difference of velocity fields in both representations).
Lee et al. fails to teach explicitly penalizing modifications of the first three-dimensional shape that deviate from the second three-dimensional shape; and
providing, by the computer aided design program, the first or second three dimensional shape of the modeled object for use in manufacturing the physical structure using one or more computer-controlled manufacturing systems.
Thore et al. teaches penalizing modifications of the first three-dimensional shape that deviate from the second three-dimensional shape (section 2 on pg 60-61; Section 4, Eq. 9 on pg. 62). In particular, Thore et al. teaches objective function fᵃ(ρ, ρᵒᶠ) = f(ρ) + P(ρ − ρᵒᶠ) (right column on pg 60) that explicitly penalizes element-wise deviations between a physical design ρ and a derived manufacturing-constrained design ρᵒᶠ, where ρᵒᶠ is derived from ρ at each iteration via an filter B(ρ) (Section 2, on the right column of Pg 60)). The penalty function P(ξ) = γ(∑ ξiᵖ wi)¹/ˠ (Equation (9)) measures the norm of element-wise differences between the two designs, with penalty factor γ regulating how closely the physical design conforms to the derived design.
Lee et al. and Thore et al. are analogous art because they are both related to a method for computer implemented design for an object.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teaching of Thore et al. into Lee et al.’s to produce designs that balance structural performance with manufacturing conformance (Thore et al: Section 1 on pg. 59-60) because Thore et al.’s penalty formulation is mathematically compatible with Lee et al’s gradient-based sensitivity framework.
However, Lee et al. as modified by Thore et al. fails to teach explicitly providing, by the computer aided design program, the first or second three dimensional shape of the modeled object for use in manufacturing the physical structure using one or more computer-controlled manufacturing systems.
Bandara et al. teaches providing, by the computer aided design program, the first or second three dimensional shape of the modeled object for use in manufacturing the physical structure using one or more computer-controlled manufacturing systems ([0062]-[0064], Fig. 1A “sending the 3D model 132 to an additive manufacturing (AM) machine 170, or other manufacturing machinery, which can be directly connected to the computer 110, or connected via a network 140, as shown.”).
Lee et al., Thore et al. and Bandara et al. are analogous art because they are all related to a method for computer implemented design for an object.
Further the motivation to incorporate the teaching of Bandara et al. to create a complete structure including the optimized topology and shape (Bandara et al.: [0063]) for use in manufacturing a physical structure enabling direct fabrication of optimized structures in various manufacturing systems and techniques, including additive, subtractive and casting manufacturing methods (Bandara et al.: Abstract).
As per Claim 2 and 18, Lee et al. teaches wherein forming the second three-dimensional shape comprises: extracting a graph from the first three-dimensional shape of the modeled object (Section 5, steps (5)-(7) on the left column of pg. 93; Section 5.3 on pg. 94).
Lee et al. fails to teach explicitly generating the second three-dimensional shape from the graph, wherein the predefined shape-type requirement is that the second three-dimensional shape is a network of beams.
Bandara et al. teaches generating the second three-dimensional shape from the graph, wherein the predefined shape-type requirement is that the second three-dimensional shape is a network of beams ([0005], [0109]-[0110], Fig. 3D, “where lattices are composed of beams or struts that are connected to each other at junctions”).
As per Claim 4 and 20, Lee et al. fails to teach explicitly wherein the generating comprises one or more of: i) limiting a maximum and/or a minimum value of a beam cross-section of each of the beams of the network of beams; ii) snapping an angle between connected beams to a snapping angle closest to the angle between the connected beams, wherein the snapping angle is equal to a specified angle value or a multiple of the specified angle value; or iii) modifying a cross-section of one or more beams of the network of beams to decrease cross-section differences between substantially collinear beams.
Bandara et al. teaches explicitly wherein the generating comprises one or more of: i) limiting a maximum and/or a minimum value of a beam cross-section of each of the beams of the network of beams ([0110], [0116] “lattice beam thickness t E {t.sub.min≤t≤t.sub.max”); ii) snapping an angle between connected beams to a snapping angle closest to the angle between the connected beams, wherein the snapping angle is equal to a specified angle value or a multiple of the specified angle value; or iii) modifying a cross-section of one or more beams of the network of beams to decrease cross-section differences between substantially collinear beams.
As per Claim 7, Lee et al. teaches wherein the first three-dimensional shape is stored as a shape boundary representation (Section 2.2, Eq. 6 on pg. 90).
Lee et al. fails to teach explicitly wherein the penalizing comprises applying a beam network constraint that penalizes a difference between the network of beams and the shape boundary representation.
Thore et al. teaches wherein the penalizing comprises applying a beam network constraint that penalizes a difference between the network of beams and the shape boundary representation (section 2 on pg 60-61; Section 4, Eq. 9 on pg. 62).
5. Claims 3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. ("Isogeometric topological shape optimization using dual evolution with boundary integral equation and level sets”), in view of Thore et al. ("Penalty regulation of overhang in topology optimization for additive manufacturing”) and Bandara et al. (US 2020/0150623 A1), further in view of Nana et al. (“Automatic reconstruction of beam structures from 3D topology optimization results”).
Lee et al. as modified by Thore et al. and Bandara et al. teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 17-18, and 20 above.
As per Claim 3 and 19, Lee et al. as modified by Thore et al. and Bandara et al. fails to teach explicitly wherein generating the second three- dimensional shape from the graph comprises: generating each of the beams of the network of beams from a respective edge of the graph, wherein each of the beams is assigned a circular cross-section of uniform radius along the beam.
Nana et al. teaches wherein generating the second three- dimensional shape from the graph comprises: generating each of the beams of the network of beams from a respective edge of the graph, wherein each of the beams is assigned a circular cross-section of uniform radius along the beam (section 3-4, Pg 64-67, “Computation of cross section parameters”, “the beam cross section radius is computed as the average value of local radii Ri.”). In particular, Nana et al. teaches each beam corresponds to a skeleton branch (graph edge) and the radius of each beam cross section computed as mean boundary-to-skeleton distance (right column of pg 67) which corresponds to the claimed limitation “a circular cross-section of uniform radius along the beam”.
Lee et al., Thore et al., Bandara et al., and Nana et al. are analogous art because they are all related to a method for computer implemented design for an object.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teaching of Nana et al. into as modified by Thore et al. and Bandara et al.s to produce designs that balance structural performance with manufacturing conformance (Thore et al: Section 1 on pg. 59-60) because Thore et al.’s penalty formulation is mathematically compatible with Lee et al’s gradient-based sensitivity framework, to create a complete structure including the optimized topology and shape (Bandara et al.: [0063]) for use in manufacturing a physical structure enabling direct fabrication of optimized structures in various manufacturing systems and techniques, including additive, subtractive and casting manufacturing methods (Bandara et al.: Abstract). Further the motivation to incorporate the teaching of Nana et al. is to provide an effective method ensuring rigid connection between beam and solid finite elements (Nana et al.: left column of pg 63).
6. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. ("Isogeometric topological shape optimization using dual evolution with boundary integral equation and level sets”), in view of Thore et al. ("Penalty regulation of overhang in topology optimization for additive manufacturing”) and Bandara et al. (US 2020/0150623 A1), further in view of Langelaar (“An additive manufacturing filter for topology optimization of print-ready designs”).
Lee et al. as modified by Thore et al. and Bandara et al. teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 17-18, and 20 above.
As per Claim 8, Lee et al. teaches wherein the iteratively modifying comprises performing an iterative topology optimization process (Section 5, steps (1)-(8) on the left column of pg. 93, Fig. 4).
Lee et al. fails to teach explicitly increasing a weight of the beam network constraint at least at an end portion of the iterative topology optimization process.
Langelaar teaches increasing a weight of the beam network constraint at least at an end portion of the iterative topology optimization process (section 3.4.3 left column of pg 880; section 3.4.4, “AM filter after continuation increasingly suppresses the option for the optimizer to build structures with gradually increasing density.”, “Continuation is performed by doubling the β parameter every 125 iterations, starting from 2.0. … Either the reference case is a local optimum, or the sharp edges caused by the 45◦ overhang limit imposed by the AM filter provide an advantage over the smoothed Heaviside projection in this case (βfinal = 16).”). In particular, Langelaar teaches that AM filter strictness is increased continuation during topology optimization iterations (section 3.4.4).
Lee et al., Thore et al., Bandara et al., and Langelaar are analogous art because they are all related to a method for computer implemented design for an object.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teaching of Langelaar into as modified by Thore et al. and Bandara et al.s to produce designs that balance structural performance with manufacturing conformance (Thore et al: Section 1 on pg. 59-60) because Thore et al.’s penalty formulation is mathematically compatible with Lee et al’s gradient-based sensitivity framework, to create a complete structure including the optimized topology and shape (Bandara et al.: [0063]) for use in manufacturing a physical structure enabling direct fabrication of optimized structures in various manufacturing systems and techniques, including additive, subtractive and casting manufacturing methods (Bandara et al.: Abstract). Further the motivation to incorporate the teaching of Langelaar is to provide topology optimization procedures ensuring optimized designs comply with typical geometrical additive manufacturing (AM) restrictions with minimization problems (Langelaar.: Abstract).
7. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. ("Isogeometric topological shape optimization using dual evolution with boundary integral equation and level sets”), in view of Thore et al. ("Penalty regulation of overhang in topology optimization for additive manufacturing”) and Bandara et al. (US 2020/0150623 A1), further in view of Wu et al. (“Design and optimization of conforming lattice structures”).
Lee et al. as modified by Thore et al. and Bandara et al. teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 17-18, and 20 above.
As per Claim 14, Lee et al. as modified by Thore et al. and Bandara et al. fails to teach explicitly wherein one or more beams are assigned a non- circular cross-section, the generating comprising: determining locally optimal orientations for each of the one or more beams using i) a shape of the first three-dimensional shape along a respective edge of the graph, or ii) directions of forces acting on each of the one or more beams, the directions of forces determined from force fields for the first three-dimensional shape.
Wu teaches wherein one or more beams are assigned a non- circular cross-section (section 4 on Pg 46 “trilinear cubic elements in 3D… with square cross section of thickness t.”), the generating comprising: determining locally optimal orientations for each of the one or more beams using i) a shape of the first three-dimensional shape along a respective edge of the graph, or ii) directions of forces acting on each of the one or more beams, the directions of forces determined from force fields for the first three-dimensional shape (section Instruction on pg 43, “orientation of anisotropic materials in stiffness-optimal structure coincides with the principal stress directions resulting from forces acting on these materials”, “. A lattice is a connected array of struts. The lattice structure generated by our method is conforming in two aspects: the struts align with principal stress directions, maximizing structural stiffness; and, struts on the boundary capture the curved surface of the optimized shape. We note that the shape,”; section 4.2 on pg 47 “the optimal orientation of an orthotropic mate rial coincides with the principal stress directions, hence the element is rotated”). In particular, Wu teaches computing stress fields on a #3D shape, extracting principal stress direction as force directions and using them to orient structural members.
Lee et al., Thore et al., Bandara et al., and Wu et al. are analogous art because they are all related to a method for computer implemented design for an object.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teaching of Nana et al. into as modified by Thore et al. and Bandara et al.s to produce designs that balance structural performance with manufacturing conformance (Thore et al: Section 1 on pg. 59-60) because Thore et al.’s penalty formulation is mathematically compatible with Lee et al’s gradient-based sensitivity framework, to create a complete structure including the optimized topology and shape (Bandara et al.: [0063]) for use in manufacturing a physical structure enabling direct fabrication of optimized structures in various manufacturing systems and techniques, including additive, subtractive and casting manufacturing methods (Bandara et al.: Abstract). Further the motivation to incorporate the teaching of Wu et al. is to provide a robust method to design lattice structures that conform with both the principal stress directions and the boundary of the optimized shape (Wu et al.: Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Allowable subject: “initializing each of the penalty parameters for the one or more constraints using a constraint-specific weight, a shape gradient of the respective constraint, and a shape gradient of the objective function;”
9. Claims 5, 9-13, and 15 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.
Allowable subject matter:
(Claim 5) “the snapping, which comprises solving an optimization problem on the graph using an objective function that measures differences between i) an angle between connected edges of the graph and ii) the closest snapping angle”
(Claim 9) “a normalization factor that depends on a volume of the design space and on a characteristic size”
(Claim 15) “wherein each of the beams is a curved beam generated by fitting a curve to approximate a medial axis of a portion of the first 3D shape for each respective edge of the graph”
10. Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Allowable subject matter: (Claim 6) “the modifying, which comprises iteratively updating a radius of each beam taking into account the angle between a respective edge in the graph and edges connected to the respective edge, using a higher contribution from connected edges that are substantially collinear”
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Qian et al. (US 20210299962 A1)
Tang Y, Dong G, Zhou Q, Zhao YF. Lattice structure design and optimization with additive manufacturing constraints. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering. 2017 Apr 27;15(4):1546-62.
Xia Q, Shi T. Constraints of distance from boundary to skeleton: for the control of length scale in level set based structural topology optimization. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. 2015 Oct 1;295:525-42.
Mass Y, Amir O. Topology optimization for additive manufacturing: Accounting for overhang limitations using a virtual skeleton. Additive Manufacturing. 2017 Dec 1;18:58-73.
Cuillière JC, François V, Nana A. Automatic construction of structural CAD models from 3D topology optimization. Computer-Aided Design and Applications. 2018 Jan 2;15(1):107-21.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. 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.
EUNHEE KIM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/EUNHEE KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights