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 1-16 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
2. Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As per Claim 8, it recites “The design method according to claim 7” which contains inconsistent terminology. Claim 1 recites “A method for designing a valve body” and the intervening claims recite “the method.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
3. Claims 7 and 9 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 “most” in claim 7 s a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “most” 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 9, it recites “arranging a lattice structure or a crystal lattice structure on a local position of the external shell.” The term “crystal lattice structure” is indefinite because it is unclear how a “crystal lattice,” which ordinarily denotes an atomic-scale arrangement, differs from or relates to the separately recited “lattice structure” at the scale of a valve-body shell. The phrase “a local position” is likewise indefinite because neither the claim nor the specification provides a standard for determining which positions of the external shell qualify as “local.”. Examiner suggests clarifying the structure intended by “crystal lattice structure” and defining “local position.”
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, 3-8, 10, 11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diegel (“Design for additive manufacturing process for a lightweight hydraulic manifold”) in view of Kumar (US 7,558,713 B2).
As per Claim 1, Diegel teaches a method for designing a valve body of an integrated valve (Title, Abstract), comprising:
determining an internal flow channel structure of a valve body model of the integrated valve according to a hydraulic function implemented by the integrated valve (Diegel pg. 3, section 3 “They form a number of interconnecting channels through which hydraulic fluid flows to the proper ports”; section 3.1 Step 1: remove everything that does not perform a function “all the plugged holes were first eliminated, leaving just the block with the network of fluid carrying pipes.”);
…
determining a work structure of the valve body model according to the internal flow channel structure, and the position and the size of respective mounting structures (Diegel: pg. 3, section 3.1 “all superfluous material was removed, leaving only the pipes behind, with a specified wall thickness that would meet the product pressure requirements.”; pg. 2, section 2 doubling the wall-thickness of the manifold to allow it to cope with greater hydraulic pressure”: forming the load-bearing structure by leaving the channels with a specified wall thickness selected to meet the pressure requirements);
determining an internal connection plane of the valve body model according to center lines of respective flow channels in the internal flow channel structure, and determining an internal supporting table for supporting the work structure according to the internal connection plane (pg. 4, section 3.3 “a good strategy can be to use a wall as a feature of the design to avoid support material while, at the same time, improving strength and rigidity of the part….“replacing the temporary wall created by the support material with a permanent wall that becomes a feature of the part.”, “The recommended thicknesses for such walls, or gussets, are around ¾ of the functional part wall thickness.”, Table 1: adding a permanent internal supporting wall as a feature of the design to support the channel structure and improve rigidity); and
determining an external shell of the valve body model, and connecting the external shell with the work structure and the internal supporting table (pg. 3, section 3.1 “Most CAD packages allow you to relatively easily do this by using a ‘shell’ function.”: forming the external shell of the lightweighted body, connected to the retained channel walls and internal supporting walls, using a CAD shell function).
In particular, Diegel teaches redesigning a hydraulic manifold to the network of internal fluid-carrying channels that implement its hydraulic function (section 3) including arranging the manifold ports and fittings according to how the external hydraulic devices connect to the manifold (pg. 3, section 3.2 Step 2: modify the design to improve functionality “By modifying the design to have all the inlet pipes coming in vertically from the bottom, and all the outlet pipes coming vertically out of the top of the manifold, the volume required to install the manifold would be reduced and the hydraulic fluid would have a smoother flow path”).
However, Diegel fails to teach explicitly according to a position and a connection mode of respective external devices connected to the integrated valve, determining a position and a size of respective mounting structures, matched with the external devices, in the valve body model.
Kumar teaches according to a position and a connection mode of respective external devices connected to the integrated valve, determining a position and a size of respective mounting structures, matched with the external devices, in the valve body model (Kumar: col. 1, lines 27-31 “Primary cavities are those cavities that accommodate valves and components defined in the input hydraulic circuit and which necessarily have to appear in the corresponding manifold. Each primary cavity has one or more than one ports.”; col. 2, ll. 40-44 “establishing two attributes for each cavity, including the exact location of each cavity on one face of the manifold and its depth to a bottommost point from the surface of the face on which it is placed.”; col. 6 lines 1-25). In particular, Kumar teaches determining, for each external valve or component defined by the hydraulic circuit, a corresponding cavity with one or more ports and establishing its exact location and size on the manifold
Diegel and Noreiga et al. are analogous art because they are both from the same field of endeavor, hydraulic valve designing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modeling of system behavior of Kumar into Diegel’s invention with design for additive manufacturing process for a lightweight hydraulic manifold in order to maximize desired objectives of compactness, flow characteristics while manufacturing costs are minimized, simultaneously meeting design and manufacturing constraints (Kumar: col. 3 lines 2-5). Doing so would have predictably produced a lightweight additively-manufactured integrated-valve body that retains the internal flow channels and device mountings dictated by the hydraulic function, with the pressure-bearing channel walls supported by an internal supporting structure and enclosed by an external shell, achieving the weight reduction and strength retention that Diegel and Kumar each identify as the design goal.
As per Claim 3, Diegel teaches wherein the step of determining a work structure of the valve body model according to the internal flow channel structure, and the position and the size of respective mounting structures comprises:
according to the internal flow channel structure, and the position and the size of respective mounting structures, setting a preset thickness for the internal flow channel structure and respective mounting structures in the valve body model to form the work structure of the valve body model (Diegel: pg. 3, section 3.1 “leaving only the pipes behind, with a specified wall thickness that would meet the product pressure requirements.”: setting a specified wall thickness around the retained channels to form the work structure).
As per Claim 4, Diegel teaches wherein the step of forming the work structure of the valve body model comprises:
keeping a bore diameter of flow channels unchanged and setting a preset thickness for the internal flow channel structure, to form a work structure of the internal flow channel structure (pg. 3, section 3.1: forming the work structure by retaining the flow-carrying pipes and adding a specified wall thickness around them).
As per Claim 5, Diegel fails to teach explicitly wherein the step of according to a position and a connection mode of respective external devices connected to the integrated valve, determining a position and a size of respective mounting structures matched with the external devices in the valve body model comprises at least one of the followings:
determining a position and a size of a valve body mounting and fixing hole in the valve body model according to a mounting position and mounting mode of the integrated valve;
determining a position and a size of a shaft coupler mounting and fixing surface on the valve body model according to a connection position and size of a valve body center of the integrated valve and a shaft coupler;
determining a position and a size of a motor mounting and fixing hole in the valve body model according to a connection position and size of the valve body of the integrated valve and a motor;
determining a position and a size of a pump mounting and fixing hole in the valve body model according to a connection position and size of the valve body of the integrated valve and a pump;
obtaining a position and a size of an oil tank mounting and fixing hole in the valve body model according to a connection position and size of the valve body of the integrated valve and an oil tank; and
obtaining positions and sizes of connecting plug-ins and respective ports in the valve body model according to positions of connecting plug-ins of the valve body of the integrated valve and ports of the connecting plug-ins.
Kumar teaches wherein the step of according to a position and a connection mode of respective external devices connected to the integrated valve, determining a position and a size of respective mounting structures matched with the external devices in the valve body model comprises at least one of the followings:
determining a position and a size of a valve body mounting and fixing hole in the valve body model according to a mounting position and mounting mode of the integrated valve;
determining a position and a size of a shaft coupler mounting and fixing surface on the valve body model according to a connection position and size of a valve body center of the integrated valve and a shaft coupler;
determining a position and a size of a motor mounting and fixing hole in the valve body model according to a connection position and size of the valve body of the integrated valve and a motor;
determining a position and a size of a pump mounting and fixing hole in the valve body model according to a connection position and size of the valve body of the integrated valve and a pump;
obtaining a position and a size of an oil tank mounting and fixing hole in the valve body model according to a connection position and size of the valve body of the integrated valve and an oil tank; and
obtaining positions and sizes of connecting plug-ins and respective ports in the valve body model according to positions of connecting plug-ins of the valve body of the integrated valve and ports of the connecting plug-ins (Kumar: col. 1, lines 27-31 “Primary cavities are those cavities that accommodate valves and components defined in the input hydraulic circuit and which necessarily have to appear in the corresponding manifold. Each primary cavity has one or more than one ports.”; col. 2, ll. 40-44 “establishing two attributes for each cavity, including the exact location of each cavity on one face of the manifold and its depth to a bottommost point from the surface of the face on which it is placed.”; col. 6 lines 1-25: Kumar determines, for each valve or component connected per the hydraulic circuit, the corresponding cavity with its ports and its exact face-location and depth).
As per Claim 6, Diegel teaches wherein the step of forming the work structure of the valve body model comprises at least one of the followings:
keeping a bore diameter of the valve body mounting and fixing hole unchanged and setting a preset thickness for the valve body mounting and fixing hole, to form a work structure of the valve body mounting and fixing hole;
keeping a connection position and size of the shaft coupler mounting and fixing surface unchanged and setting a preset thickness for the shaft coupler mounting and fixing surface, to form a work structure of the shaft coupler mounting and fixing surface;
keeping a bore diameter of the motor mounting and fixing hole unchanged and setting a preset thickness for the motor mounting and fixing hole, to form a work structure of the motor mounting and fixing hole;
keeping a bore diameter of the pump mounting and fixing hole unchanged and setting a preset thickness for the pump mounting and fixing hole, to form a work structure of the pump mounting and fixing hole;
keeping a bore diameter of the oil tank mounting and fixing hole unchanged and setting a preset thickness for the oil tank mounting and fixing hole, to form a work structure of the oil tank mounting and fixing hole; and
keeping a connection position and size of the connecting plug-ins unchanged and setting a preset thickness for ports of the connecting plug-ins, to form a work structure of the connecting plug-ins and the ports of the connecting plug-ins (Diegel: pg. 3, section 3.1 “leaving only the pipes behind, with a specified wall thickness that would meet the product pressure requirements.”: forming each mounting feature’s work structure by retaining its size and setting a wall thickness meeting the working requirement).
As per Claim 7, Diegel teaches wherein the step of determining an internal connection plane of the valve body model according to center lines of respective flow channels in the internal flow channel structure comprises: setting a plane in which most center lines of the flow channels are distributed as the internal connection plane (pg. 4, section 3.3: the permanent supporting wall along the plane of the channel network so that it supports the largest number of channels).
As per Claim 8, Diegel teaches wherein the step of determining an internal supporting table for supporting the work structure according to the internal connection plane comprises: setting a preset thickness for the internal connection plane to form the internal supporting table, and fixedly connecting the internal supporting table with parts, located on two sides of the internal connection plane, of the work structure (pg. 4, section 3.3 “The recommended thicknesses for such walls, or gussets, are around ½ of the functional part wall thickness.”: forming the permanent supporting wall with a set thickness and connects it as a feature of the part to the surrounding work structure).
As per Claim 10, Diegel teaches further comprising: after forming the work structure, according to a protruding length or a protruding angle of a cantilever part of the work structure relative to the external shell, arranging a reinforcing rib on the cantilever part (pg. 4, section 3.3 “any feature that is more than a certain angle from vertical, such as 45 degrees (the exact angle varies de pending on the material being printed and the AM system being used) will require support material.”: evaluating each overhanging feature by its angle and adding a permanent reinforcing wall or gusset to it).
As per Claim 11, Diegel teaches further comprising: performing finite element simulation and verification on the valve body model, and performing iteratively optimization on a stress concentration area of the valve body model (pg. 5-6, section 3.3 “it is advisable to fillet all internal corners.”, “a print simulation was done in order to ascertain that the part would not break away from its supports during print while, at the same time gaining an understanding of the residual stress that would be left in the part after the build process.”: performing build simulation to evaluate residual stress and rounds sharp internal corners to relieve stress concentration).
As per Claim 13, Diegel teaches a method for manufacturing a valve body of an integrated valve, comprising:
obtaining a valve body model designed by the method according to claim 1 (pg. 1, section 1 “The case study in this article uses metal powder-bed fusion as its manufacturing technology”); and machining and manufacturing the valve body model by an additive manufacturing method to form the valve body of the integrated valve (pg. 1, section 1 “The case study in this article uses metal powder-bed fusion as its manufacturing technology”: Diegel manufactures the designed manifold by metal additive manufacturing).
As per Claim 14, Diegel teaches an integrated valve, comprising: a valve body, manufactured by the method according to claim 13 (pg. 8, section 5 “transforming it into a lightweight manifold with over 91 % weight savings compared to the original manifold”: Diegel produces the printed hydraulic manifold (valve body) by the above method).
As per Claim 15, Diegel teaches wherein the valve body (Fig. 15, pg 3-5, section 3.1-3.3: the body produced by Diegel comprises the shelled exterior, the retained channel walls and mounting features, and the permanent internal supporting walls connected within the shell) comprises:
an external shell (Fig. 15, pg 3-5, section 3.1-3.3);
a work structure of an internal flow channel structure, at least partially arranged in the external shell and fixedly connected to the external shell (Fig. 15, pg 3-5, section 3.1-3.3);
work structures of respective mounting structures matched with the external devices, at least partially arranged in the external shell and fixedly connected to the external shell (Fig. 15, pg 3-5, section 3.1-3.3); and
an internal supporting table, arranged in the external shell, and fixedly connected to at least part of the work structures of respective mounting structures, the external shell and at least part of the work structure of the internal flow channel structure (Fig. 15, pg 3-5, section 3.1-3.3).
As per Claim 16, Diegel teaches wherein the valve body further comprises: a reinforcing rib, connected to at least one of the work structures of respective mounting structures, the external shell and the work structure of the internal flow channel structure (pg. 4-5, section 3.3 “improving strength and rigidity of the part.”: Diegel adds permanent reinforcing walls or gussets connected to the work structure as features of the part).
5. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diegel in view of Kumar and further in view of Li (“Optimization Design of Hydraulic Valve Block and Its Internal Flow Channel Based on Additive Manufacturing,”).
Diegel as modified by Kumar teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1, 3-8, 10, 11 and 13-16 above.
As per Claim 2, Diegel as modified by Kumar teaches further comprising: when determining the internal flow channel structure, performing transition process on the center lines of respective flow channels in the internal flow channel structure (Diegel: pg. 3, section 3.2 “the hydraulic fluid would have a smoother flow path”; Kumar: col. 1, lines 9-11 “are machined into the manifold block to house any valves and create required flow passages.”). In particular, Diegel as modified by Kumar teaches re-routing the internal flow channels so the hydraulic fluid follows a smoother path.
However, Diegel as modified by Kumar fails to teach explicitly according to a B-spline curve.
Li teaches according to a B-spline curve (Li: pg. 375-6, section 2.1 “According to the B-spline curve shown in Fig.6, the three-dimensional model of the flow channel is created as shown in Fig.7. It can be seen that the hydraulic flow channel created by B-spline curve is smoother.”). In particular, Li optimizes the internal flow channel of a hydraulic valve block by shaping its center path with a B-spline curve and verifies the result by computational fluid dynamics to minimize pressure loss.
Diegel, Noreiga et al. and Li are analogous art because they are all from the same field of endeavor, valve structure designing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modeling of system behavior of Li into Diegel as modified by Kumar’s invention with design for additive manufacturing process for a lightweight hydraulic manifold in order to maximize desired objectives of compactness, flow characteristics while manufacturing costs are minimized, simultaneously meeting design and manufacturing constraints (Kumar: col. 3 lines 2-5) and to optimize the hydraulic valve design to reduce the pressure loss (Li: right column on pg 376).
6. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diegel in view of Kumar and further in view of Griffin (US 10,281,053 B2).
Diegel as modified by Kumar teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1, 3-8, 10, 11 and 13-16 above.
As per Claim 9, Diegel as modified by Kumar fails to teach explicitly further comprising: when determining the external shell, arranging a lattice structure or a crystal lattice structure on a local position of the external shell.
Griffin teaches when determining the external shell, arranging a lattice structure or a crystal lattice structure on a local position of the external shell (col. 8 lines 16-42 “wherein the lattice structure 152 is three-dimensional and includes a plurality of connected lattice members 154. The lattice structure 152 as illustrated in FIGS. 2-5 may be formed by directly depositing the solidfiable material directly on the outside surface 150 of the inner wall 136 (FIG. 2), the inside surface 148 of the inner wall 136 (FIG. 3), or to the inner wall 136 within the hollow space 162 of the shell 160 (FIG. 4A-4B).”).
However, Diegel as modified by Kumar fails to teach explicitly according to a B-spline curve.
Li teaches according to a B-spline curve (Li: pg. 375-6, section 2.1 “According to the B-spline curve shown in Fig.6, the three-dimensional model of the flow channel is created as shown in Fig.7. It can be seen that the hydraulic flow channel created by B-spline curve is smoother.”). In particular, Li optimizes the internal flow channel of a hydraulic valve block by shaping its center path with a B-spline curve and verifies the result by computational fluid dynamics to minimize pressure loss.
Diegel, Noreiga et al. and Griffin are analogous art because they are all from the same field of endeavor, valve structure designing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modeling of system behavior of Griffin into Diegel as modified by Kumar’s invention with design for additive manufacturing process for a lightweight hydraulic manifold in order to maximize desired objectives of compactness, flow characteristics while manufacturing costs are minimized, simultaneously meeting design and manufacturing constraints (Kumar: col. 3 lines 2-5) and to reduce the weight of that local region while maintaining support, so manufacturing a valve body or a regulator body that may be light, stable, and capable of withstanding pressure of a typical valve body or regulator body is also desirable (Griffin: col. 2 lines 4-11).
7. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diegel in view of Kumar and further in view of Bobbitt (US 9,626,608 B2).
Diegel as modified by Kumar teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1, 3-8, 10, 11 and 13-16 above.
As per Claim 12, Diegel as modified by Kumar fails to teach explicitly further comprising: further comprising: setting identification information on a surface of the valve body model.
Bobbitt teaches setting identification information on a surface of the valve body model (col. 7 lines 29-31 “The identification mark can be located either internally or on the surface of an additively manufactured structure”).
Diegel, Noreiga et al. and Bobbitt are analogous art because they are all from the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing structure designing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modeling of system behavior of Bobbitt into Diegel as modified by Kumar’s invention with design for additive manufacturing process for a lightweight hydraulic manifold in order to maximize desired objectives of compactness, flow characteristics while manufacturing costs are minimized, simultaneously meeting design and manufacturing constraints (Kumar: col. 3 lines 2-5) and to provide a unique identifiable mark so that the manufactured parts thus formed can be uniquely recognized and identified for secure tracing and counterfeiting prevention (Bobbitt: col. 2 lines 19-24).
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prusha (US 2023/0028518 A1) teaches an additively manufactured valve body having internal walls that define fluid ducts and chambers.
9. 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