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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although
the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the
specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It
is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire
reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims &
only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give
the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure.
Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was
referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is
broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are
provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the
examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the
intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 1-12 do not textually label the figures. The figures should be corrected to include both textual and numerical labeling for clarity and better understanding of the invention. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “…workpiece during production is performed for for a plurality of predetermined alloys and for a…”. Here there is a typographical error of a repeated word “for”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“- a receiving unit which is designed to receive a component description that specifies a workpiece to be produced…”.
“- a determination unit which is designed to determine a reference component for at least part of the component description…”.
“- a database unit that is designed to store first simulation data that specify at least one property of the reference component…”.
“- a reading unit that is designed to read out the first simulation data for the reference component from the database unit…”.
“- a parameter determination unit which is designed to determine at least one production parameter for producing the workpiece using the first simulation data.”.
in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 invokes 112(f) and does not sufficiently lay out the structure for the units in its limitations or in its specification (receiving unit, determination unit, simulation unit, reading unit, database unit and parameter determination unit). Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for being indefinite since the units are lacking any structure. Correction is required. For examination purpose, Examiner is interpreting these units as described in the specification and drawings.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 1.
STEP 1: Yes. The claim recites a method which is a process.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE:
The claim recites multiple abstract ideas. The claim specifically recites multiple mental processes.
- simulating a cooling rate of a reference workpiece during the production for at least one predetermined alloy and at least one predetermined production method, taking into consideration at least one production method;
Mental process of determination and comparison in light of the specifications statement “…whether the cooling rate is greater than a critical cooling rate.” shows a mental process in simulation.
- determining a reference component for at least part of the component description, wherein the determination is performed using pattern recognition, wherein the determination of the reference component comprises segmenting the component description into a plurality of component segments, wherein the pattern recognition is performed for at least one component segment;
Mental process of pattern recognition and segmenting that can be done in the mind or with aid of pen and paper.
- determining at least one production parameter for producing the workpiece using the first simulation data.
Mental process of determining using judgment to find a parameter for producing the workpiece using the simulation data.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: The claim does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: The claim does not recite an inventive concept or significantly more than the exception.
Conclusion: Claim 1 is directed to a mental process, not integrated into a practical application and lacks an inventive concept. Therefore, it is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 2,
The method according to claim 1 wherein the segmentation comprises dividing a component geometry specified by the component description, using basic shapes and/or connection points.
This just further describes the segmentation which remains a mental process.
Regarding Claim 3,
The method according to claim 1 wherein the determination of the reference component comprises loading a reference data set, in particular from a database unit, wherein the reference data set specifies a plurality of reference components, and wherein the determination comprises selecting the reference component from the reference data set using the pattern recognition.
This further describes data gathering and further describes the mental process of pattern matching.
Regarding Claim 4,
The method according to claim 1 wherein the pattern recognition comprises classification, in particular using an artificial neural network, wherein the classification associates a reference component, in particular of a/the reference data set, with component segments, in particular pixels, voxels, volume elements and/or partial segments of the component geometry.
This merely defines the field of use of the pattern recognition to use an artificial neural network and does not remedy the abstract ideas from the claim it depends upon.
Regarding Claim 5,
The method according to claim 1 where in the first simulation data specify a cooling rate of the reference component for a predetermined alloy and a predetermined production method.
This just further describes the simulation data and does not remedy the abstract ideas from the claim it depends upon.
Regarding Claim 6,
The method according to claim 1 wherein the first simulation data specify mechanical properties of the reference component for a predetermined alloy, a predetermined production method and/or a cooling rate.
This just describes in more detail what is first simulation data and does not remedy the abstract ideas from the claim it depends upon.
Regarding Claim 7,
The method according to claim 1 wherein the simulation of the cooling rate of the reference workpiece during production is performed for for a plurality of predetermined alloys and for a plurality of predetermined production methods, preferably simulation of the cooling rate of the reference workpiece after an injection procedure in an injection molding process; and wherein the storing of the reference simulation data comprises storing in a database unit.
This merely explains the data needed to be collected and where it is stored. This does not remedy the abstract ideas from the claim it depends upon.
Regarding Claim 8,
The method according to claim 1 by wherein determining at least one mechanical property of the workpiece to be produced using a simulated cooling rate of the reference component, wherein the determination of the at least one production parameter is also performed using the determined at least one mechanical property.
This just further describes the determination uses a mechanical property and does not resolve the abstract ideas from the claim it depends upon.
Regarding Claim 9,
The method according to claim 1 wherein the simulation of the cooling rate is performed taking into consideration parameters of a production method, for example a stamping speed, an initial temperature and/or a mold geometry.
This just defines parameters taken into account in the mental process of determination and does not resolve the abstract ideas from the claim it depends upon.
Regarding Claim 10,
The method according to claim 1 wherein the simulation of the cooling rate or of the mechanical load case is only performed when the stored first simulation data for a reference component do not specify a cooling rate or result data for an identical load case.
This just adds a conditional for if the mental process occurs and does not resolve the abstract ideas from the claim it depends upon.
Regarding Claim 11,
A production method for producing a workpiece, comprising the following steps: determining at least one production parameter via a method according to claim 1 producing the workpiece using the at least one production parameter.
The added limitation of “producing the workpiece using the at least one production parameter.” does not resolve the issues with the independent claim. This limitation just designates the field of use. 2106.05(h).
Regarding Claim 12,
A computer-readable storage medium which contains instructions which prompt the at least one processor to implement a method according to claim 1 when the instructions are executed by the at least one processor.
This limitation uses generic computer components to execute the claim and does not resolve the issues from the claim it depends upon.
Claim 13.
STEP 1: Yes. The claim recites a system which is a machine.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE:
The claim recites multiple abstract ideas. The claim specifically recites multiple mental processes.
- a determination unit which is designed to determine a reference component for at least part of the component description, wherein the determination unit is designed to perform the determination using pattern recognition, wherein the determination unit is further designed to perform segmentation of the component description into a plurality of component segments, wherein the determination unit is designed to perform the pattern recognition for at least one component segment, wherein the determination unit has a simulation unit which is designed to simulate a cooling rate of a reference component during production for at least one predetermined alloy and for at least one predetermined production method, taking into consideration at least one production method;
Mental process of determining a reference component based on the component description, mental process of pattern recognition with segmentation, mental process of simulation based on the definition giving in the specification, and mental process of taking into account at least one production method.
- a parameter determination unit which is designed to determine at least one production parameter for producing the workpiece using the first simulation data.
Mental process of determining using judgment to find a parameter for producing the workpiece using the simulation data.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: The claim does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: The claim does not recite an inventive concept or significantly more than the exception.
Conclusion: Claim 13 is directed to a mental process, not integrated into a practical application and lacks an inventive concept. Therefore, it is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 14,
The design system according to Claim 13, wherein a production machine that is designed to produce the workpiece to be produced using the at least one production parameter.
The added limitation of “production machine that is designed to produce the workpiece to be produced using the at least one production parameter.” does not resolve the issues with the independent claim. This limitation just designates the field of use. 2106.05(h).
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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG et al. DE 102010048969 A1 (2011) [herein “WANG”], WANG et al. US 20060277004 A1 (2006) [herein “WANG2”], and ZHANG et al. “Feature Net: Machining feature recognition based on 3D Convolution Neural Network “. (2018) [herein “ZHANG”].
Regarding Claim 1, WANG teaches
A method for determining at least one production parameter of a workpiece to be produced that has amorphous properties, said method comprising the following steps:
- simulating a cooling rate of a reference workpiece during the production for at least one predetermined alloy and at least one predetermined production method, taking into consideration at least one production method;
“The present invention relates generally to the heat treatment of metals and alloys, including aluminum alloy castings. More particularly, the invention relates to systems, methods, and articles of manufacture for predicting the heat transfer coefficient of quenched and / or gas castings after solution annealing.”. (Pg. 3).
“After solution annealing, hot metal workpieces are usually quenched at a controlled cooling rate for better mechanical properties. Experimental and numerical simulation results show that the HTC between the hot metal object and the quenching medium such.”. (Pg. 5).
“The initially calculated from the CFD simulation HTC distribution for the entire surface of the workpiece can then by Multiplication scaling factors are optimized so that the predicted temperature-time profiles match the experimental measurements for the given or baseline quench condition (within an acceptable tolerance).”. (Pg. 6).
This shows simulating a cooling rate to optimize future productions while taking into account production methods for the alloy.
- storing reference simulation data that specify the simulated cooling rate;
“The initially calculated from the CFD simulation HTC distribution for the entire surface of the workpiece can then by Multiplication scaling factors are optimized so that the predicted temperature-time profiles match the experimental measurements for the given or baseline quench condition (within an acceptable tolerance). If the HTC values are optimized for a baseline quench condition, then a set of semi-empirical equations (weighting functions) can be used to quickly modify the optimized baseline HTC data for different quench conditions (ie deviations of the quench conditions from the baseline), without performing complete heat transfer and optimization calculations.”. (Pg. 6).
“The measured thermocouple data (temperature vs. time) were stored in a database for use in the heat transfer modeling and optimization processes.”. (Pg. 11).
“In order to further optimize the heat transfer coefficients on the surfaces of the aluminum casting so that the calculated temperature distribution agrees with the measured cooling curves, a transient thermal simulation (heat transfer modeling) must be performed… The CFD calculated HTC distribution is mapped to ABAQUS as an initial constraint, and the transient heat transfer simulation is performed using ABAQUS to obtain the temperature-time profile.”. (Pg. 12).
This shows storing in a database, cooling rate data to be used in simulation.
WANG does not explicitly teach but WANG2 teaches
- receiving a component description that specifies a workpiece to be produced, wherein the component description is specified by a data structure, and wherein the component description specifies a geometry of the workpiece to be produced and an alloy;
“…generate casting designs from the input product design by searching the database and retrieving data therefrom.” (0060).
“…a database (115) which contains casting design data and rules pertaining to alloy properties, casting processes, geometrics, mined data and design rules…” (Claim 1).
This shows receiving geometrics of a workpiece with data rules and rules for the workpiece such as the alloy type.
- determining a reference component for at least part of the component description, wherein the determination is performed using pattern recognition…
““…a geometry analyzer, in communication with said graphical user interface, which analyzes the input product design and generates the geometry characteristics of the product to be cast, (d) an inference engine which is adapted to generate casting designs by (i) searching the knowledge database, (ii) performing pattern-matching operations…”. (0007).
This shows using pattern recognition on the reference component.
…wherein the pattern recognition is performed for at least one component segment;
“…a geometry analyzer, in communication with said graphical user interface, which analyzes the input product design and generates the geometry characteristics of the product to be cast, (d) an inference engine which is adapted to generate casting designs by (i) searching the knowledge database, (ii) performing pattern-matching operations…”. (0007).This shows doing pattern recognition on a segment.
- reading out first simulation data for the reference component that specify at least one property of the reference component, wherein the stored reference simulation data are read out as first simulation data;
“(b) providing a database which contains information relating to casting, the database including design rules, alloy properties, and information relating to known casting methods; and (c) analyzing the geometry of the proposed casting design with the use of the information contained in the database, thereby deriving a possible casting solution.”. (0008).
This shows reading out the data to derive a casting solution which is stored in a database.
- determining at least one production parameter for producing the workpiece using the first simulation data.
“Once the alloy selection 325 and casting process selection 327 are made, various other aspects of the casting process are determined. These may include shrinkage rates 341, the number and location of any blind holes 351, taper and draft 343, machining stock 353, the casting layout in the mold or die 345, the number and location of parting lines 355, the mold/core design 347, and other casting parameters 357. With this information, the casting weight 363 and the die/mold fill time and rate 365 are set.”. (0063).
This shows determining parameters for producing the workpiece.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of WANG2’s method of pattern recognition with WANG’s simulation of a cooling rate. The motivation for doing so would have been to create a system to improve casting as stated by WANG2’s “…a need in the art for systems and methodologies that allow casting product designers and casting process engineers to optimize the design of casting geometrics … to ensure high quality castings with minimum lead time and cost.”. (0005).
WANG and WANG2 do not explicitly teach but ZHANG teaches
…wherein the determination of the reference component comprises segmenting the component description into a plurality of component segments…
“The proposed framework can recognize manufacturing features from the low-level geometric data such as voxels with a very high accuracy. The developed framework can also recognize planar intersecting features in the 3D CAD models. Extensive numerical experiments show that Feature Net enables significant improvements over the state-of-the-arts manufacturing feature detection techniques. The developed data-driven framework can easily be extended to identify a large variety of machining features leading to a sound foundation for real-time computer aided process planning (CAPP) systems.”. (Abstract). (See Table A.1.)
This shows segmenting the 3d workpiece into basic shapes.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of ZHANG’s method of segmenting with WANG as modified by WANG2’s improved casting system. The motivation for doing so would have been to create a system to improve computer aided manufacturing as stated by ZHANG’s “The developed framework can also recognize planar intersecting features in the 3D CAD models. Extensive numerical experiments show that Feature Net enables significant improvements over the state of-the-arts manufacturing feature detection techniques. The developed data-driven framework can easily be extended to identify a large variety of machining features leading to a sound foundation for real-time computer aided process planning (CAPP) systems.”. (Abstract). Doing so would allow integration of the segmentation system into the casting manufacturing process.
Regarding Claim 3, WANG and ZHANG does not explicitly teach but WANG2 teaches
The method according to claim 1 wherein the determination of the reference component comprises loading a reference data set, in particular from a database unit, wherein the reference data set specifies a plurality of reference components, and wherein the determination comprises selecting the reference component from the reference data set using the pattern recognition.
“In one aspect, a casting design system is provided which comprises (a) a database which contains casting design data and rules, (b) a user interface, in communication with said database, which accepts as input a product design that is to be cast by a casting process, and (c) an inference engine which is adapted to generate casting designs from the input product design by searching the database and retrieving data therefrom.”. (0006).
PNG
media_image1.png
488
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 shows from a database loading the necessary data for the casting design process. (Figure 1.).
Regarding Claim 4, WANG and WANG2 do not explicitly teach but ZHANG teaches
The method according to claim 1 wherein the pattern recognition comprises classification, in particular using an artificial neural network, wherein the classification associates a reference component, in particular of a/the reference data set, with component segments, in particular pixels, voxels, volume elements and/or partial segments of the component geometry.
“An accurate and robust machine learning algorithm for recognition and classification requires a large and encompassing training dataset. The dataset is usually acquired from single or multiple sources or is synthetically generated. To train our 3D-CNN network to classify the selected set of features, a synthetic dataset of machining features was generated.”. (4. Database Creation).
“They can utilize the spatial structures of the voxels to learn 3D local filters to encode simple spatial structures, like planes, edges, and corners.”. (5. Feature Net: 3D convolution neural network).“The same framework can be easily extended to learn a large variety of machining features from a variety of different manufacturing processes. In addition, the same framework can be used to identify non-manufacturable features in additively manufactured parts. Multiple trained 3D CNNs could be simultaneously combined to reason about manufacturability of a given 3D CAD model using different manufacturing processes. A promising direction of future work is to integrate the tasks of segmentation and classification. By restructuring the deep CNN architecture and training on large multi-feature dataset, both of these tasks can be performed simultaneously by the CNN.”. (7. Conclusion).
This shows associating reference data with voxels or volumes with component geometry.
Regarding Claim 5, WANG2 and ZHANG do not explicitly teach but WANG teaches
The method according to claim 1 wherein the first simulation data specify a cooling rate of the reference component for a predetermined alloy and a predetermined production method.
“After solution annealing, hot metal workpieces are usually quenched at a controlled cooling rate for better mechanical properties. Experimental and numerical simulation results show that the HTC between the hot metal object and the quenching medium such. As air and / or gas an important role in influencing the deterrent results such. B. distortion, residual stress and final mechanical properties plays. In order to accurately predict residual stress, warpage and mechanical properties…”. (Pg. 5-6).
“Although the following example refers to aluminum castings, the same process would apply to other materials such as aluminum castings. Metals and alloys of metals as would be appreciated by those skilled in the art.”. (Pg. 10).
“…an initial set of HTC data from the CFD simulation based on workpiece geometry, quench bed / tunnel setup (geometry), initial workpiece temperature (distribution) prior to quenching and a given or measurement base quenching condition which includes, but is not limited to, an air and / or gas flow direction relative to the workpiece, an air and / or gas flow rate, air and / or gas temperature and humidity, etc.”. (Pg. 6).
“The measured thermocouple data (temperature vs. time) were stored in a database for use in the heat transfer modeling and optimization processes.”. (Pg. 11).
This shows simulation data with a cooling rate associated with an alloy and production method.
Regarding Claim 6, WANG2 and ZHANG do not explicitly teach but WANG teaches
The method according to claim 1 wherein the first simulation data specify mechanical properties of the reference component for a predetermined alloy, a predetermined production method and/or a cooling rate.
“The measured thermocouple data (temperature vs. time) were stored in a database for use in the heat transfer modeling and optimization processes.”. (Pg. 11).
“After solution annealing, hot metal workpieces are usually quenched at a controlled cooling rate for better mechanical properties. Experimental and numerical simulation results show that the HTC between the hot metal object and the quenching medium such. As air and / or gas an important role in influencing the deterrent results such. B. distortion, residual stress and final mechanical properties plays. In order to accurately predict residual stress, warpage and mechanical properties…”. (Pg. 5-6).
“Although the following example refers to aluminum castings, the same process would apply to other materials such as aluminum castings. Metals and alloys of metals as would be appreciated by those skilled in the art.”. (Pg. 10).
This shows simulation data with mechanical properties associated with the alloy and production method.
Regarding Claim 7, WANG2, and ZHANG do not explicitly teach but WANG teaches
The method according to claim 1 wherein the simulation of the cooling rate of the reference workpiece during production is performed for a plurality of predetermined alloys and for a plurality of predetermined production methods, preferably simulation of the cooling rate of the reference workpiece after an injection procedure in an injection molding process; and wherein the storing of the reference simulation data comprises storing in a database unit.
“Examples of suitable materials include, but are not limited to, aluminum, magnesium, steel, and their alloys.”. (Pg. 10).
“…to develop a complete database of heat transfer coefficients for the air quenched aluminum casting, different quench orientations (vertical, horizontal, and diagonal with respect to air flow direction) were tested, as well as different process conditions, such as air and/or gas temperature, humidity, and velocity.”. (Pg. 11).
“For each test, the temperature of the air circulated, the humidity, the air pressure and the air velocity were recorded. The measured thermocouple data (temperature vs. time) were stored in a database for use in the heat transfer modeling and optimization processes.”. (Pg. 11).
This shows simulation of a workpiece with associated alloys and production methods.
Regarding Claim 8, WANG2 and ZHANG does not explicitly teach but WANG teaches
The method according to claim 1 wherein determining at least one mechanical property of the workpiece to be produced using a simulated cooling rate of the reference component, wherein the determination of the at least one production parameter is also performed using the determined at least one mechanical property.
“In order to accurately predict residual stress, warpage and mechanical properties of quenched metal articles, it is desirable to obtain accurate HTC data with respect to various air and / or gas quench process conditions.”. (Pg. 5-6).
“…they provide the opportunity to optimize the HTC data and thus reduce residual stresses through a deterrent process optimization.”. (Pg. 6).
“After solution annealing, hot metal workpieces are usually quenched at a controlled cooling rate for better mechanical properties. Experimental and numerical simulation results show that the HTC between the hot metal object and the quenching medium such. As air and / or gas an important role in influencing the deterrent results such. B. distortion, residual stress and final mechanical properties plays. In order to accurately predict residual stress, warpage and mechanical properties of quenched metal articles, it is desirable to obtain accurate HTC data with respect to various air and / or gas quench process conditions.”. (Pg.6).
This shows determining a production parameter using production properties and a cooling rate.
Regarding Claim 9, WANG2 and ZHANG do not explicitly teach but WANG teaches
The method according to claim 1 wherein the simulation of the cooling rate is performed taking into consideration parameters of a production method, for example a stamping speed, an initial temperature and/or a mold geometry.
“The CFD simulation 110 and the heat transfer modeling 120 Use information about the casting geometry model of Block 125 and the quench bed / tunnel model of Block 130 as well as an initial workpiece temperature (distribution) before quenching and the standard quenching condition 101 which includes, but is not limited to, an air and / or gas flow direction relative to the workpiece, an air and / or gas flow velocity, an air and / or gas temperature and humidity, etc. The initial set of HTC data for the merge modeling 120 is through the CFD simulation 110 via the CFD-mapped HTC distribution 115 provided. At block 135 follows the optimization (as further described below) using the experimental temperature database of Block 140 used and the simulated temperature distributions of the heat transfer modeling 120 with the experimental temperature measurements 140 compares.”. (Pg. 7).
“…a given or measurement base (standard) Quenching condition, which includes, but is not limited to, an air and / or gas flow rate, an air and / or gas flow direction relative to the workpiece, an air and / or gas temperature, an air and / or gas humidity, etc. procured.”. (Abstract).
This shows taking into consideration production parameters during the simulation.
Regarding Claim 10, WANG2 and ZHANG do not explicitly teach but WANG teaches
The method according to claim 1 wherein the simulation of the cooling rate or of the mechanical load case is only performed when the stored first simulation data for a reference component do not specify a cooling rate or result data for an identical load case.
“…at the decision block 155 whether there is an optimal HTC distribution for the measurement base deterrent condition. If the optimal HTC distribution for the measurement base quench condition is not available in the database, the system will continue with the procedure as described above.”. (Pg. 8).
“If optimal HTC distribution is available for the measurement base condition, the system proceeds to the HTC weighting function module at block 160 Further, the HTC distribution for the specified quench condition at block 170 using the HTC weighting database by Block 165 and the optimal HTC distribution for the measurement base Quench condition of block 150 calculated.”. (Pg. 8).
“…a set of semi-empirical equations (or weighting functions) can be used to quickly get the standard / measurement base HTC data for different deterrence conditions (i.e., deviations of the deterrence conditions from the measurement base) Modify without performing full heat transfer and optimization calculations.”. (Abstract).
This shows the simulation only being ran if it has not been done before. Only ran if needed.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 is rejected under the same ground of rejections as claim 1 as discussed above for substantially the similar rationale.
In addition, claim 12 recites “A computer-readable storage medium” and a “processor”.
WANG and ZHANG do not explicitly teach but WANG2 teaches
A “computer-readable storage medium” and a “processor”.
PNG
media_image2.png
490
510
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
510
780
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 and 7 show a storage medium of a database and a processor that can be used to implement the instructions of the method.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG et al. DE 102010048969 A1 (2011) [herein “WANG”], WANG et al. US 20060277004 A1 (2006) [herein “WANG2”], ZHANG et al. “Feature Net: Machining feature recognition based on 3D Convolution Neural Network “. (2018) [herein “ZHANG”], and PASCHALIDOU et al. “Super quadrics Revisited: Learning 3D Shape Parsing beyond Cuboids”. (2019) [herein “PASCHALIDOU”].
Regarding Claim 2, WANG, WANG2, and ZHANG do not explicitly teach but PASCHALIDOU teaches
The method according to claim 1 wherein the segmentation comprises dividing a component geometry specified by the component description, using basic shapes and/or connection points.
“Abstracting complex 3D shapes with parsimonious part-based representations has been a long-standing goal in computer vision. This paper presents a learning-based soon to this problem which goes beyond the traditional 3D cuboid representation by exploiting super quadrics as atomic elements. We demonstrate that super quadrics lead to more expressive 3D scene parses while being easier to learn than 3D cuboid representations. Moreover, we provide an analytical solution to the Chamfer loss which avoids the need for computational expensive reinforcement learning or iterative prediction. Our model learns to parse 3D objects into consistent super quadric representations without supervision. Results on various Shape Net categories as well as the SURREAL human body dataset demonstrate the flexibility of our model in capturing fine details and complex poses that could not have been modelled using cuboids.”. (Abstract). (Please see figures (A) (B) (C) Pg. 1).
This shows segmenting geometry in to basic shapes.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of PASCHALIDOU’s method of segmenting components with WANG-WANG2-ZHANG’s improved casting system. The motivation for doing so would have been to create a system that can take into account finer segmentation as stated by PASCHALIDOU’s “Our model learns to parse 3D objects into consistent super quadric representations without supervision. Results on various Shape Net categories as well as the SURREAL human body dataset demonstrate the flexibility of our model in capturing fine details and complex poses that could not have been modelled using cuboids.”. (Abstract). Doing so would allow the casting system to further segment 3D cad objects in the process of manufacturing.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG et al. DE 102010048969 A1 (2011) [herein “WANG”], WANG et al. US 20060277004 A1 (2006) [herein “WANG2”], ZHANG et al. “Feature Net: Machining feature recognition based on 3D Convolution Neural Network “. (2018) [herein “ZHANG’], and KIENER et al. EP 3376412 A1 (2018) [herein “KIENER”].
Regarding Claim 11, WANG and ZHANG do not explicitly teach but WANG2 teaches
A production method for producing a workpiece, comprising the following steps: determining at least one production parameter via a method according to claim 1, …
“As there are many search parameters involved, this search-matching approach avoids the occurrence of combinatorial explosion inherent in brute force or resource-intensive searching, and hence functions in a more efficient manner. The search process itself is directed by a rule interpreter.”. (0046).
WANG, WANG2, and ZHANG do not explicitly teach but KIENER teaches
…producing the workpiece using the at least one production parameter.
“The production planning program CAM generates a schedule PLN which is given to a controller CRL of the additive manufacturing machine ADM. This flowchart contains on the one hand a manufacturing data set CLI, which is used to produce the workpiece…”. (Pg. 20).
This shows using a production parameter to produce a workpiece.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of KIENER’s method of producing a workpiece with WANG-WANG2-ZHANG’s improved casting system. The motivation for doing so would have been to create a system to improve casting as stated by KIENER’s “…producing a geometry data set (STL) for an additively produced workpiece (20) and to a method for generating a schedule (PLN) with which an additive manufacturing machine (ADM) for producing the workpiece (20) can be operated… provided that the design program (CAD) can be supplied with material data sets (MAT) via an interface (S1), which contain producible properties of geometric regions of the workpiece (20) to be produced. This simplifies the design process, since these material properties can be directly assigned to the areas of the workpiece (20) to be produced.”. (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 14, WANG, WANG2, and ZHANG do not explicitly teach but KIENER teaches
The design system according to Claim 13, wherein a production machine that is designed to produce the workpiece to be produced using the at least one production parameter.
“In a production planning program (CAM), the production parameters (PRT) required for the material properties (MAT) are taken into account and forwarded to a plant (ADM) for the production of the workpiece (20). In the material data pool (MPL), material properties (MAT) can be stored together with production parameters (PRT) running on specific machine types (MTP).”. (Abstract).
This shows using production parameters to produce a workpiece from a machine.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG et al. US 20060277004 A1 (2006) [herein “WANG2”], WANG et al. DE 102010048969 A1 (2011) [herein “WANG”], and ZHANG et al. “Feature Net: Machining feature recognition based on 3D Convolution Neural Network “. (2018) [herein “ZHANG”].
Regarding Claim 13, WANG2 teaches
A design system, comprising the following: - a receiving unit which is designed to receive a component description that specifies a workpiece to be produced, wherein the component description is specified by a data structure, and wherein the component description specifies a geometry of the workpiece to be produced and an alloy;
“…generate casting designs from the input product design by searching the database and retrieving data therefrom.” (0060).
“…a database (115) which contains casting design data and rules pertaining to alloy properties, casting processes, geometrics, mined data and design rules…” (Claim 1).
This shows receiving geometrics of a workpiece with data rules and rules for the workpiece such as the alloy.
- a determination unit which is designed to determine a reference component for at least part of the component description, wherein the determination unit is designed to perform the determination using pattern recognition,
““…a geometry analyzer, in communication with said graphical user interface, which analyzes the input product design and generates the geometry characteristics of the product to be cast, (d) an inference engine which is adapted to generate casting designs by (i) searching the knowledge database, (ii) performing pattern-matching operations…”. (0007).
This shows using pattern recognition on the reference component.
wherein the determination unit is designed to perform the pattern recognition for at least one component segment,
“…a geometry analyzer, in communication with said graphical user interface, which analyzes the input product design and generates the geometry characteristics of the product to be cast, (d) an inference engine which is adapted to generate casting designs by (i) searching the knowledge database, (ii) performing pattern-matching operations…”. (0007).This shows doing pattern recognition on a segment.
- a reading unit that is designed to read out the first simulation data for the reference component from the database unit, and wherein the reading unit is further designed to read out the stored reference simulation data;
“(b) providing a database which contains information relating to casting, the database including design rules, alloy properties, and information relating to known casting methods; and (c) analyzing the geometry of the proposed casting design with the use of the information contained in the database, thereby deriving a possible casting solution.”. (0008).
This shows reading out the data to derive a casting solution which is stored in a database.
- a parameter determination unit which is designed to determine at least one production parameter for producing the workpiece using the first simulation data.
“Once the alloy selection 325 and casting process selection 327 are made, various other aspects of the casting process are determined. These may include shrinkage rates 341, the number and location of any blind holes 351, taper and draft 343, machining stock 353, the casting layout in the mold or die 345, the number and location of parting lines 355, the mold/core design 347, and other casting parameters 357. With this information, the casting weight 363 and the die/mold fill time and rate 365 are set.”. (0063).
This shows determining parameters for producing the workpiece.
WANG2 does not explicitly teach but WANG teaches
wherein the determination unit has a simulation unit which is designed to simulate a cooling rate of a reference component during production for at least one predetermined alloy and for at least one predetermined production method, taking into consideration at least one production method;
“The present invention relates generally to the heat treatment of metals and alloys, including aluminum alloy castings. More particularly, the invention relates to systems, methods, and articles of manufacture for predicting the heat transfer coefficient of quenched and / or gas castings after solution annealing.”. (Pg. 3).
“After solution annealing, hot metal workpieces are usually quenched at a controlled cooling rate for better mechanical properties. Experimental and numerical simulation results show that the HTC between the hot metal object and the quenching medium such.”. (Pg. 5).
“The initially calculated from the CFD simulation HTC distribution for the entire surface of the workpiece can then by Multiplication scaling factors are optimized so that the predicted temperature-time profiles match the experimental measurements for the given or baseline quench condition (within an acceptable tolerance).”. (Pg. 6).
This shows simulating a cooling rate to optimize future productions while taking into account production methods for the alloy.
- a database unit that is designed to store first simulation data that specify at least one property of the reference component, and wherein the database unit is further designed to store reference simulation data that specify the simulated cooling rate;“The initially calculated from the CFD simulation HTC distribution for the entire surface of the workpiece can then by Multiplication scaling factors are optimized so that the predicted temperature-time profiles match the experimental measurements for the given or baseline quench condition (within an acceptable tolerance). If the HTC values are optimized for a baseline quench condition, then a set of semi-empirical equations (weighting functions) can be used to quickly modify the optimized baseline HTC data for different quench conditions (ie deviations of the quench conditions from the baseline), without performing complete heat transfer and optimization calculations.”. (Pg. 6).
“The measured thermocouple data (temperature vs. time) were stored in a database for use in the heat transfer modeling and optimization processes.”. (Pg. 11).
“In order to further optimize the heat transfer coefficients on the surfaces of the aluminum casting so that the calculated temperature distribution agrees with the measured cooling curves, a transient thermal simulation (heat transfer modeling) must be performed… The CFD calculated HTC distribution is mapped to ABAQUS as an initial constraint, and the transient heat transfer simulation is performed using ABAQUS to obtain the temperature-time profile.”. (Pg. 12).
This shows storing in a database cooling rate data to be used in simulation.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of WANG’s method of simulating a cooling rate with WANG2’s pattern recognition. The motivation for doing so would have been to create a system to improve casting predictions as stated by WANG’s “…method of predicting heat transfer coefficients for metal castings during quenching and / or cooling … the entire surface of the workpiece can then be optimized by multiplication scaling factors in order to minimize the error between the predicted temperature-time profiles and the experimental measurements for the given or the standard / measurement base quenching condition.”. (Abstract). Doing so would allow the application of predictive parameters while finely segmenting workpieces for casting.
WANG2 and WANG do not explicitly teach but ZHANG teaches
wherein the determination unit is further designed to perform segmentation of the component description into a plurality of component segments,
“The proposed framework can recognize manufacturing features from the low-level geometric data such as voxels with a very high accuracy. The developed framework can also recognize planar intersecting features in the 3D CAD models. Extensive numerical experiments show that Feature Net enables significant improvements over the state-of-the-arts manufacturing feature detection techniques. The developed data-driven framework can easily be extended to identify a large variety of machining features leading to a sound foundation for real-time computer aided process planning (CAPP) systems.”. (Abstract). (See Table A.1.)
This shows segmenting the 3d workpiece into plurality of pieces.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of ZHANG’s method of segmenting with WANG2 as modified by WANG’s improved casting system. The motivation for doing so would have been to create a system to improve computer aided manufacturing as stated by ZHANG’s “The developed framework can also recognize planar intersecting features in the 3D CAD models. Extensive numerical experiments show that Feature Net enables significant improvements over the state of-the-arts manufacturing feature detection techniques. The developed data-driven framework can easily be extended to identify a large variety of machining features leading to a sound foundation for real-time computer aided process planning (CAPP) systems.”. (Abstract). Doing so would allow integration of the segmentation system into the casting manufacturing process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20200167649 A1 by TANNINEN et al, and CN 110989540 A by FURU et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NARCISO EDUARDO MONTES whose telephone number is (571)272-5773. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, REHANA PERVEEN can be reached at (571) 272-3676. 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.
/N.E.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189