DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 15 have been presented for examination.
This office action is in response to submission of the application on 05/25/2023.
Hashima et al. (US 2005/0119773) and Feng et al. “3D DESIGN TOOLS FOR EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURING AND EXHIBITION BASED ON INTERNET” are cited on the IDS, and relied upon in the instant office action.
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 limitation(s) is/are: the “unit” in claim 1 and claim 10 and 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. Looking to the specification, the various “unit” cover general purpose computer structure and functionality (see the instant application Figure 1, and Paragraph 41 the units are analogous to modules “The partial cable optimization unit includes a partial cable behavior calculation module 166 that is an example of the ‘partial cable behavior calculation unit’ ”, and Paragraph 49 “For example, simulation device 1 can be implemented in information processing device 100 configured of a general-purpose computer”, and Paragraph 75 “When executed, cable simulation program 137 implements cable simulator 165 including various modules of the partial cable optimization unit in Fig. 1”).
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 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.
Claims 1 – 15 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.
With regard to claim 1 (and similarly claim 14 and 15), it recites “a plurality of guides” in preamble, and then later recites “a partial cable between guides”, and then later recites “of each of the plurality of guides” and “the guides”. The later recited “of each of the plurality of guides” and “the guides” does not have proper antecedent basis since there are two previously recited “plurality of guides” and “guides”. The limitation is interpreted for examination purposes as referring back to either of the guides.
With regard to claim 5, it recites “for each predetermined time step” and “the time step for each time step”. The claim lacks proper antecedent basis since there is no previously recited “predetermined time step”. The limitation is interpreted for examination purposes as any desired time step which can be predetermined.
With regard to claim 7, it recites “rigid bodies” twice, and then later recites “the rigid bodies”, therefore, the latter lacks proper antecedent basis. The limitation is interpreted for examination purposes as referring back to either of the rigid bodies.
With regard to claim 9, the parent claim recites “rigid bodies” twice, and the dependent claim later recites “the rigid bodies”, therefore, the latter lacks proper antecedent basis. The limitation is interpreted for examination purposes as referring back to either of the rigid bodies.
With regard to claims 2 – 4, 6, 8 and 10 – 13, they are rejected by virtue of dependency on a rejected parent claim, and without reciting limitation to overcome the unclarity.
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 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a machine) simulation device that calculates a behavior of a cable attached to an instrument through a plurality of guides, the simulation device comprising: a partial cable behavior calculation to calculate a behavior of a second target disposed in a virtual space corresponding to a partial cable between guides using a parameter set regarding cable attachment including a position and a posture of each of the plurality of guides in the virtual space and a partial cable length between the guides based on a behavior of a first target corresponding to the instrument disposed in the virtual space; a load calculation to calculate a load applied to the second target corresponding to the partial cable based on the behavior of the second target corresponding to the partial cable calculated by the partial cable behavior calculation unit using the parameter set for each of a plurality of the parameter sets for the each partial cable; a parameter determination to determine whether calculated magnitude of the load of the second target corresponding to the partial cable satisfies a constraint for each of the plurality of parameter sets for the each partial cable; and a parameter decision to decide a parameter set satisfying a condition regarding attachment of an entire cable into which partial cables are integrated, from at least one parameter set determined by the parameter determination unit to satisfy the constraint for the each partial cable. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “determine” and “decide” amounts to modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “calculate” covers numerical calculations. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: that the partial cable behavior calculation, and load calculation, and parameter determination, and parameter decision are by unit configured. The various “unit” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)) (see the instant application Paragraph 41 the units are analogous to modules “The partial cable optimization unit includes a partial cable behavior calculation module 166 that is an example of the ‘partial cable behavior calculation unit’ ” and Paragraph 75 the modules are software modules of a program executed “When executed, cable simulation program 137 implements cable simulator 165 including various modules of the partial cable optimization unit in Fig. 1”, and Paragraph 49 “For example, simulation device 1 can be implemented in information processing device 100 configured of a general-purpose compute”). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited various “unit” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 – 6, 7 - 9, 11 and 13 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s):
Claim 2 wherein the constraint includes a condition that the magnitude of the load applied to the second target corresponding to the partial cable does not exceed a threshold
Claim 3 wherein the constraint includes a condition that the magnitude of the load applied to the second target corresponding to the partial cable does not exceed a threshold when the length of the partial cable changes within a predetermined range
Claim 4 wherein the condition regarding the attachment of the entire cable includes a condition that a position and a posture of a guide shared between the adjacent partial cables are common.
Claim 5 wherein the behavior of the first target includes a behavior calculated for each predetermined time step, and
the partial cable behavior calculation unit calculates the behavior of the second target using the parameter set based on the behavior of the first target corresponding to the time step for each time step.
Claim 7 wherein the second target includes a rigid link modeled by joining adjacent rigid bodies with a joint in a row, and
the physical simulator calculates the behavior of the second target by performing an arithmetic operation according to an equation representing a relationship between positions and postures of adjacent rigid bodies in the modeled rigid link and a constraint condition imposed on a relationship between positions and postures of the rigid bodies, the constraint condition being a condition corresponding to the joint, based on the behavior of the first target.
Claim 8 wherein the constraint condition includes a parameter representing hardness of the cable.
Claim 9 wherein the load includes a load applied to each of the rigid bodies included in the second target
Claim 11 wherein the instrument includes a robot.
At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “a condition” further limits the parent claim constraint of the “determine”, and without precluding performance in the mind. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “calculated” and “based on the behavior” and “second target includes” further limits the parent claim “calculate“ and without precluding numerical calculations. The “performing an arithmetic operation” further limits the parent claim “physical simulator” to recite mathematical operations. The “constraint condition includes” further limits the parent claim “preforming an arithmetic operation” without precluding mathematical operations. The “load includes” and “instrument” further limit the parent claim “calculate” and without precluding numerical calculations. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: Claim 11 the behavior of the first target is calculated by emulation of a robot program having an instruction code operating the robot. The “emulation” recites the idea of an outcome since it require no more than generic “code” to effectuate a desired functional result (see the instant application Paragraph 82 “Robot emulation program 130 reproduces a predetermined motion handling workpiece 232 by robot 30 based on the result (the behavior of the object) calculated by physical simulation program 122”). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The “emulation” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it requires no more than ordinary equipment operating in its normal capacity. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 6, 10 and 12 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s):
Claim 10 an evaluation to evaluate the behavior of the second target calculated by the partial cable behavior calculation unit based on the calculated load.
At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “evaluate” requires no more than judgements and evaluations covering modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims:
that the evaluation is by a unit configured
Claim 6 wherein the partial cable behavior calculation unit includes a physical simulator.
Claim 12 wherein the simulation device calculates a behavior of a target corresponding to a peripheral instrument of the robot disposed in the virtual space by executing a simulation program including an instruction or a parameter controlling the peripheral instrument.
The “unit” is recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)) (see the instant application Paragraph 41 the units are analogous to modules “The partial cable optimization unit includes a partial cable behavior calculation module 166 that is an example of the ‘partial cable behavior calculation unit’ ” and Paragraph 75 the modules are software modules of a program executed “When executed, cable simulation program 137 implements cable simulator 165 including various modules of the partial cable optimization unit in Fig. 1”, and Paragraph 49 “For example, simulation device 1 can be implemented in information processing device 100 configured of a general-purpose compute”). The “physical simulator” and “executing a simulation program” recites the idea of an outcome since it requires no more than generic “code” to effectuate a desired functional result (see the instant application Paragraph 101 “Physical simulator 156 is implemented by executing physical simulation program 122 (Fig. 4).”). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claims do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “unit” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The “physical simulator” and “executing a simulation program” amount to reciting the words “apply it” since it requires no more than ordinary equipment operating in its normal capacity. For at least these reasons, the claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 14 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a manufacture) non-transitory storage medium storing thereon a simulation program that causes a computer to execute a method for calculating a behavior of a cable attached to an instrument through a plurality of guides, wherein the method includes: calculating a behavior of a second target disposed in a virtual space corresponding to a partial cable between guides using a parameter set regarding cable attachment including a position and a posture of each of the plurality of guides in the virtual space and a partial cable length between the guides based on a behavior of a first target corresponding to the instrument disposed in the virtual space; and determining a parameter for each of the partial cable, the determining the parameter includes: calculating a load applied to the second target corresponding to the partial cable based on the behavior of the second target corresponding to the partial cable calculated using the parameter set for each of a plurality of the parameter sets for the each partial cable; and determining whether calculated magnitude of the load of the second target corresponding to the partial cable satisfies a constraint for each of the plurality of parameter sets for the each partial cable, and the method further includes deciding a parameter set satisfying a condition regarding attachment of an entire cable into which partial cables are integrated, from at least one parameter set determined to satisfy the constraint for the each partial cable in the determining the parameter.
At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “determining” and “deciding” amounts to modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “calculating” covers numerical calculations. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention does not recite any further limitations. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there no further reciting limitations. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 15 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a process) computer-implemented method for calculating a behavior of a cable attached to an instrument through a plurality of guides, wherein the method includes the same steps as claim 14. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea for the same reasons as in claim 14.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: the that method is computer-implemented. The “computer-implemented” is recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)) (see the instant application Paragraph 41 the units are analogous to modules “The partial cable optimization unit includes a partial cable behavior calculation module 166 that is an example of the ‘partial cable behavior calculation unit’ ” and Paragraph 75 the modules are software modules of a program executed “When executed, cable simulation program 137 implements cable simulator 165 including various modules of the partial cable optimization unit in Fig. 1”, and Paragraph 49 “For example, simulation device 1 can be implemented in information processing device 100 configured of a general-purpose compute”). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “computer-implemented” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 4 and 6 – 10 and 13 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashima et al. (US 2005/0119773) (henceforth “Hashima (773)”) in view of Feng et al. “3D DESIGN TOOLS FOR EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURING AND EXHIBITION BASED ON INTERNET” (henceforth “Feng”). Hashima (773) and Feng are analogous art because they solve the same problem of simulating a cable behavior, and because they are from the same field of endeavor of mechanical simulations.
With regard to claim 1, Hashima (773) teaches a simulation device that calculates a behavior of a cable attached to an instrument through a plurality of guides, the simulation device comprising: (Hashima (773) Paragraph 18 “Using a three-dimensional mechanism model created based on the harness information and the three-dimensional model data of mechanical components, motion of the harness is simulated in conjunction with motion of the mechanical components”, and Paragraph 112 the total cable length include clamp components (plurality of guides) “The starting point and the terminating point of a harness model are often provided on a connector component or a clamp component, since these points often serve as passing points and relay points of the harness”, and Figure 2 a computer system executed to implement the device and executable instructions)
a partial cable behavior calculation unit configured to calculate a behavior of a second target disposed in a virtual space corresponding to a partial cable between guides using a parameter set regarding cable attachment including a position and a posture of each of the plurality of guides in the virtual space and (Hashima (773) Paragraph 32 and Figure 3 behavior of cable is determined across portions (behavior of a second target) including clamp component and their positions (between guides) “Both ends of the harness are connected/secured to connector components, which are mechanical components of the object apparatus. Further, clamp components can clamp some parts of the harness, other than the ends thereof, for locating and securing of the harness”
PNG
media_image1.png
275
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, and Paragraph 18 the behavior is virtualized (virtual space) “Using a three-dimensional mechanism model created based on the harness information and the three-dimensional model data of mechanical components, motion of the harness is simulated in conjunction with motion of the mechanical components”)
a partial cable length between the guides (Hashimi (773) Paragraph 112 start and end points between clamps are analyzed “The starting point and the terminating point of a harness model are often provided on a connector component or a clamp component, since these points often serve as passing points and relay points of the harness”, and Paragraph 83 “However, if P2 and P3 are shifted so that the distance (Pl-P2) between Pl and P2 and the distance (P3-P4) between P3 and P4 are always a specific length of d”)
based on a behavior of a first target corresponding to the instrument disposed in the virtual space; (Hashimi (773) Paragraph 64 the overall cable deformation is analyzed (behavior of a first target) “That is, assuming that the starting and terminating points of the harness are combined with mechanical components, the starting and the terminating points move as the mechanical components move, the harness being thereby deformed”)
Hashima (773) does not appear to explicitly disclose: a load calculation unit configured to calculate a load applied to the second target corresponding to the partial cable based on the behavior of the second target corresponding to the partial cable calculated by the partial cable behavior calculation unit using the parameter set for each of a plurality of the parameter sets for the each partial cable; a parameter determination unit configured to determine whether calculated magnitude of the load of the second target corresponding to the partial cable satisfies a constraint for each of the plurality of parameter sets for the each partial cable; and a parameter decision unit configured to decide a parameter set satisfying a condition regarding attachment of an entire cable into which partial cables are integrated, from at least one parameter set determined by the parameter determination unit to satisfy the constraint for the each partial cable.
However, Feng teaches:
a load calculation unit configured to calculate a load applied to a second target corresponding to a partial cable based on a behavior of the second target corresponding to the partial cable calculated by a partial cable behavior calculation unit using a parameter set for each of a plurality of the parameter sets for the each partial cable; a parameter determination unit configured to determine whether calculated magnitude of the load of the second target corresponding to the partial cable satisfies a constraint for each of the plurality of parameter sets for the each partial cable; and (Feng Figure 6 and Page 43, Right load displaces body link (calculate a load based on a behavior, and for each partial cable) and is judged against a distance constraint which is analogous to an elastic limit constraint (magnitude of load satisfies a constraint) “Distance constraint between nodes is used in the essay, in order to avoid exceeding the elastic limit because of the influences by displacement in nodes. It can simulate the tensile deformation of various types of cable.”
PNG
media_image2.png
264
334
media_image2.png
Greyscale
)
a parameter decision unit configured to decide a parameter set satisfying a condition regarding attachment of an entire cable into which partial cables are integrated, from at least one parameter set determined by the parameter determination unit to satisfy the constraint for the each partial cable. (Feng Page 43, Right routine optimization is performed using simulation results, where one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize result effective variables “Zhejiang University put forward the simulation method of stride length quasistatic cables based on optimization, and acquired the target about fast convergence of cable”) (see MPEP 2144.05(II) Routine Optimization)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of simulating a harness disclosed by Hashima (773) with the steps of simulating and optimizing a harness disclosed by Feng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize a cable harness (Feng Page 43, Right).
With regard to claim 14, it recites steps which are substantially the same as claim 1, which is taught by Hashima (773) in view of Feng. Claim14 further recites: a simulation program that causes a computer to execute a method for calculating a behavior of a cable attached to an instrument through a plurality of guides.
Hashima (773) teaches: a simulation program that causes a computer to execute a method for calculating a behavior of a cable attached to an instrument through a plurality of guides (Hashima (773) Paragraph 18 “Using a three-dimensional mechanism model created based on the harness information and the three-dimensional model data of mechanical components, motion of the harness is simulated in conjunction with motion of the mechanical components”, and Paragraph 112 the total cable length include clamp components (plurality of guides) “The starting point and the terminating point of a harness model are often provided on a connector component or a clamp component, since these points often serve as passing points and relay points of the harness”, and Figure 2 a computer system executed to implement the device and executable instructions)
With regard to claim 15, it recites steps which are substantially the same as claim 1, which is taught by Hashima (773) in view of Feng. Claim15 further recites: a computer-implemented method for calculating a behavior of a cable attached to an instrument through a plurality of guides
Hashima (773) teaches: a simulation program that causes a computer to execute a method for calculating a behavior of a cable attached to an instrument through a plurality of guides (Hashima (773) Paragraph 18 “Using a three-dimensional mechanism model created based on the harness information and the three-dimensional model data of mechanical components, motion of the harness is simulated in conjunction with motion of the mechanical components”, and Paragraph 112 the total cable length include clamp components (plurality of guides) “The starting point and the terminating point of a harness model are often provided on a connector component or a clamp component, since these points often serve as passing points and relay points of the harness”, and Figure 2 a computer system executed to implement the device and executable instructions)
With regard to claim 2, Hashima (773) in view of Feng teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the constraint includes a condition that the magnitude of the load applied to the second target corresponding to the partial cable does not exceed a threshold. (Feng Figure 6 load displaces body link and is judged against a distance constraint which is analogous to an elastic limit constraint
PNG
media_image2.png
264
334
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, and Page 43, Right “Distance constraint between nodes is used in the essay, in order to avoid exceeding the elastic limit because of the influences by displacement in nodes. It can simulate the tensile deformation of various types of cable.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of simulating a harness disclosed by Hashima (773) with the steps of simulating and optimizing a harness disclosed by Feng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize a cable harness (Feng Page 43, Right).
With regard to claim 3, Hashima (773) in view of Feng teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the constraint includes a condition that the magnitude of the load applied to the second target corresponding to the partial cable does not exceed a threshold when the length of the partial cable changes within a predetermined range. (Feng Figure 6 load displaces body link (cable changes within a range) and is judged against a distance constraint (does not exceed a threshold) which is analogous to an elastic limit constraint (magnitude of the load applied)
PNG
media_image2.png
264
334
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, and 43, Right “Distance constraint between nodes is used in the essay, in order to avoid exceeding the elastic limit because of the influences by displacement in nodes. It can simulate the tensile deformation of various types of cable.”)
With regard to claim 4, Hashima (773) in view of Feng teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the condition regarding the attachment of the entire cable includes a condition that a position and a posture of a guide shared between the adjacent partial cables are common. (Hashima (773) Paragraph 112 clamp components are common with respect to their adjacent cable portions “The starting point and the terminating point of a harness model are often provided on a connector component or a clamp component, since these points often serve as passing points and relay points of the harness”)
With regard to claim 6, Hashima (773) in view of Feng teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the partial cable behavior calculation unit includes a physical simulator. (Feng Figure 8 motion using a computer simulation
PNG
media_image3.png
187
378
media_image3.png
Greyscale
) (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 the physical simulator is disclosed at a high level of generality)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of simulating a harness disclosed by Hashima (773) with the steps of simulating and optimizing a harness disclosed by Feng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize a cable harness (Feng Page 43, Right).
With regard to claim 7, Hashima (773) in view of Feng teaches all the elements of the parent claim 6, and further teaches:
wherein the second target includes a rigid link modeled by joining adjacent rigid bodies with a joint in a row, and (Hashima (773) Paragraph 51 and Figure 3 “As will be described later with reference to FIG. 3 and FIG. 4, this simulation section 12 treats the harness as a three-dimensional model in which harness parts, obtained by dividing the harness into two or more divisions, are linked by three-degree-of-freedom rotational joints. In addition, as shown in FIG. 1, the simulation section 12 has the functions as the mechanical component position calculating section 121, the harness position/shape calculating section 122, and the three-dimensional image producing section 123.” Figure 3
PNG
media_image4.png
426
749
media_image4.png
Greyscale
)
the physical simulator calculates the behavior of the second target by performing an arithmetic operation according to an equation representing a relationship between positions and postures of adjacent rigid bodies in the modeled rigid link and a constraint condition imposed on a relationship between positions and postures of the rigid bodies, the constraint condition being a condition corresponding to the joint, based on the behavior of the first target. (Feng Page 43, Right equations constraint the motion of rigid links (arithmetic operation and a constraint condition) according to overall motion of the rigid body (based on the behavior of the first target)
PNG
media_image5.png
247
354
media_image5.png
Greyscale
)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of simulating a harness disclosed by Hashima (773) with the steps of simulating and optimizing a harness disclosed by Feng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize a cable harness (Feng Page 43, Right).
With regard to claim 8, Hashima (773) in view of Feng teaches all the elements of the parent claim 7, and further teaches: wherein the constraint condition includes a parameter representing hardness of the cable. (Feng 43, Right “Our method solved the problem of cable stiffness coefficient by using spherical link body, and achieved the fast motion physical simulation of all levels cable”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of simulating a harness disclosed by Hashima (773) with the steps of simulating and optimizing a harness disclosed by Feng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize a cable harness (Feng Page 43, Right).
With regard to claim 9, Hashima (773) in view of Feng teaches all the elements of the parent claim 8, and further teaches: wherein the load includes a load applied to each of the rigid bodies included in the second target. (Feng Figure 6 stress and displacement are computed at each node
PNG
media_image6.png
265
330
media_image6.png
Greyscale
)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of simulating a harness disclosed by Hashima (773) with the steps of simulating and optimizing a harness disclosed by Feng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize a cable harness (Feng Page 43, Right).
With regard to claim 10, Hashima (773) in view of Feng teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1, and further teaches: an evaluation unit configured to evaluate the behavior of the second target calculated by the partial cable behavior calculation unit based on the calculated load. (Feng Figure 6 displacement of each node is judged, where the displacement depends on the stress (based on the calculated load)
PNG
media_image6.png
265
330
media_image6.png
Greyscale
)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of simulating a harness disclosed by Hashima (773) with the steps of simulating and optimizing a harness disclosed by Feng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize a cable harness (Feng Page 43, Right).
With regard to claim 13, Hashima (773) in view of Feng teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1, and further teaches: an image generation unit configured to generate an image visualizing the virtual space. (Hashima (773) Paragraph 19 “Further, since the motion of the harness is shown in real time as a three-dimensional image on the display,”)
Claims 5 and 11 - 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashima (773) in view of Feng, and further in view of Shimodaira et al. (US 2018/0250820) (henceforth “Shimodaira (820)”). Hashima (773) and Feng and Shimodaira (820) are analogous art because they solve the same problem of simulating movement in a virtual space, and because they are from the same field of endeavor of mechanical simulations.
With regard to claim 5, Hashima (773) in view of Feng teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the behavior of the first target includes a behavior calculated for each time step, and the partial cable behavior calculation unit calculates the behavior of the second target using the parameter set based on a behavior of the first target corresponding to the time step. (Hashima (773) Paragraph 18 the motion of the harness due to the motion of other components is simulated in real time (behavior of the first target corresponding to a time step) “Thus, at design of the harness, it is possible for a designer to check in real time the motion of the harness accompanying the motion of the mechanical components,” and Paragraph 51 and Figure 3 the simulated motion include harness subdivisions (behavior of the second target) “As will be described later with reference to FIG. 3 and FIG. 4, this simulation section 12 treats the harness as a three-dimensional model in which harness parts, obtained by dividing the harness into two or more divisions, are linked by three-degree-of-freedom rotational joints. In addition, as shown in FIG. 1”)
Hashima (773) in view of Feng does not appear to explicitly disclose: the first target and second target behavior are with regard to a predetermined time step (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103).
However, Shimodaira (820) teaches:
wherein a behavior of a first target includes a behavior calculated for each predetermined time step, and calculates a behavior of a second target using a parameter set based on a behavior of the first target corresponding to a time step for each time step. (Shimodaira (820) Figure 29B various workpiece models behaviors are simulated in unit time, where the same could apply in a similar manner to the movements of Hashima (773) with regard to the movements of the mechanical components and the subdivisions while having a wholly predictable effect
PNG
media_image7.png
257
287
media_image7.png
Greyscale
)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of simulating a harness disclosed by Hashima (773) in view of Feng with the unit simulation of various movements disclosed by Shimodaira (820). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to verify a desired motion in a virtual workspace (Shimodaira (820) Abstract).
With regard to claim 11, Hashima (773) in view of Feng teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the instrument includes a robot, and (Hashima (773) Paragraph 4 “Generally speaking, when apparatus, such as printers, automobiles, machine tools, and industrial robots, in which harnesses are incorporated are designed”)
Hashima (773) in view of Feng do not appear to explicitly disclose: the behavior of the first target is calculated by emulation of a robot program having an instruction code operating the robot.
However, Shimodaira (820) teaches:
a behavior of a first target is calculated by emulation of a robot program having an instruction code operating the robot (Shimodaira (820) Paragraph 4 4 “In such a robot simulation apparatus, CAD models as workpiece models which have a three-dimensional shape of a workpiece are randomly disposed in a virtual work space that is a virtually formed work space and a picking-up process, that is, the picking from a bulk pile, by a robot is simulated.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of simulating a harness disclosed by Hashima (773) in view of Feng with the unit simulation of various movements disclosed by Shimodaira (820). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to verify a desired motion in a virtual workspace (Shimodaira (820) Abstract).
With regard to claim 12, Hashima (773) in view of Feng, and further in view of Shimodaira (820) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 11, and further teaches: wherein the simulation device calculates a behavior of a target corresponding to a peripheral instrument of the robot disposed in the virtual space by executing a simulation program including an instruction or a parameter controlling the peripheral instrument. (Shimodaira (820) Paragraph 126 simulation includes a robot arm end effector “In the picking motion simulation, even when an end effector model obtained by simulating an end effector of a robot is determined to be capable of performing the grasping”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of simulating a harness disclosed by Hashima (773) in view of Feng with the unit simulation of various movements disclosed by Shimodaira (820). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to verify a desired motion in a virtual workspace (Shimodaira (820) Abstract).
Examiner General Comments
With regard to the prior art rejection(s), any cited portion of the relied upon reference(s), either by pointing to specific sections or as quotations, is intended to be interpreted in the context of the reference(s) as a whole as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. 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 since the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the cited portions. Further, the claims and only the claims form the metes and 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 and spirit of compact prosecution.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Sasaki, H. (US 2021/0170599) teaches simulating a robot with a divided cable model.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-8988. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am to 6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emerson Puente can be reached at 571-272-3652. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALFRED H B WECHSELBERGER/Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights