DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-21 are presented for examination.
This office action is in response to submission of application on 16-MAR-2023.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/27/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13 is missing a period. 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.
Claims 13-14, 16 and 18 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the negative of the vector field". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the negative offset shape". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the final negative offset positions". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason per dependency on claim 16.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically:
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill) “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, Judgments, and opinions.”
Further, the MPEP recites “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.”
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) “Mathematical Relationships A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. For example, pressure (p) can be described as the ratio between the magnitude of the normal force (F) and area of the surface on contact (A), or it can be set forth in the form of an equation such as p = F/A.”
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B) “Mathematical Formulas or Equations A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. For example, the phrase "determining a ratio of A to B" is merely using a textual replacement for the particular equation (ratio = A/B). Additionally, the phrase "calculating the force of the object by multiplying its mass by its acceleration" is using a textual replacement for the particular equation (F= ma).”
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) “Mathematical Calculations A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.”
simulating an object as a collection of spheres in a regular three-dimensional grid, each sphere having an initial position, and each sphere connected to its neighboring spheres by a set of spring and damper structures;
The “spheres” in the “three-dimensional grid” amount to particles in a grid. In a “three-dimensional grid”, the particles are assigned an x, y, and z position. A personal can reasonably in the mind perform the function of assigning a particle a position in a grid. The “collection of spheres” implies more than one particle. A person can reasonably observed and evaluate the position of more than one particles in a grid. An “initial position” is assigned to the particles. The “neighboring spheres” interactive based on a “spring and damper structures”, also known as a mass-spring-damper model. The elements of the “spring” and “damper” are components in a classical model. The specification does not specify any definition different than what a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the “spring” and “damper”. A person can reasonably solve simple mass-spring-damper models by evaluating the assigned values of the “spring” and “damper” and performing an evaluation.
PNG
media_image1.png
162
232
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the spring and damper structures are configured to collide and resist overlapping each other such the three-dimensional grid behaves dynamically as a deformable solid;
The “spring and damper structures” are connected between the “spheres”. These “sphere” are “configured to collide and resist overlapping”. This gives the collective of “spheres” the appearance of deformation of a larger object that is being modeled or simulated. One can reasonably in the mind determine the effect of pushing on one of the “spheres” and predicting or evaluating the effect as a group. The “deformable solid” is the representation of the model.
simulating a post-processing step as a series of sequential steps, wherein for each step, adjusting a rest length of each of the spring and damper structures and a diameter of each of the spheres, followed by a solving operation whereby the spheres of the collection of spheres move to reach a higher state of equilibrium; and
The “sequential steps” are the effects of the deformation of the model. A person can observe and evaluate the “sequential steps” because a force applied to one “sphere” will cause a cascading effect. The “rest length” and “diameter” is determined based on how the model or simulation is configured when no force is being applied. The “higher state of equilibrium” can be evaluated based on the observation of the spheres and when the movement of the “spheres” appears stabilized based on the observation.
whereby the simulation of the post-processing step represents non-uniform shrinkage, swelling and distortion of the object and where the simulation provides a set of final distorted positions of the spheres.
The “non-unform shrinkage, swelling and distortion” occurs when one of the “spheres” receives a force that causes the “collection of spheres” to move. This can reasonably be evaluated based on the observation of how the force is applied. The “final distorted positions” is the observed effect of the applied force.
Therefore, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
There are no additional elements, additional to the abstract idea itself, and therefore no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (in Step 2A Prong 2).
Therefore, no meaningful limits are imposed on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
There are no additional elements, additional to the abstract idea itself, and therefore no additional elements which could provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (in Step 2B).
The claim is ineligible.
2. “The method of claim 1 wherein during the series of sequential steps, the rest lengths of the spring and damper structures are adjusted in part according to the orientation of spring and damper structures with respect to a global coordinate frame, thereby simulating varying shrinkage rates in the directions aligned with the axes of the global coordinate frame.”
The “directions aligned with the axes” amounts to having the simulation in the “frame”. The “orientation of the spring and damper structures” is observed and then be can be reorientated based on the “shrinkage rates” of the model. This can reasonably be done in the mind based on the observation of the model and oriented based on judgement of the way to view the model in the frame. (Step 2A Prong 1)
3. “The method of claim 1 further comprising, during the step of simulating a post-processing step, adding a set of rigid objects and forces to the collection of spheres and wherein the solving the operation includes conducting a collision detection among the rigid objects and the collection of spheres and where the spheres of the collection of spheres and the rigid objects are subject to motion according to forces applied to them.”
The “collision detection” of the model is based on the “motion” of the objects in the frame. Based on how the “spheres” are moving, “collision detection” determines a collision has occurred. This can be done in the mind by observing the model and determining a collision has occurred based on a judgement of the “spheres” moving. (Step 2A Prong 1)
4. “The method of claim 1 wherein during the simulating the post-processing step, halting the adjustment of the rest length of at least one spring and damper structure when the rest length of that spring and damper structure has been adjusted to a threshold magnitude.”
Applying a “threshold magnitude” to the “rest length” is an evaluation of the “spheres” while the length of the “spring and damper structure” is not in movement. The “threshold magnitude” is assigned to be used in further evaluation. (Step 2A Prong 1)
5. “The method of claim 3 wherein during the simulating the post-processing step the rigid objects impart friction induced reaction forces upon the spheres.”
The “friction” is based on the evaluation of the “collision detection” and the reaction of the “spheres”. This is further evaluation of the previous observation of the collision. (Step 2A Prong 1)
6. “The method of claim 1 wherein each sphere is associated with a cell that maintains a set of properties including temperature, stress, strain, material compliance and density.”
The assigning of the values of “temperature, stress, strain, material compliance and density” is an observation of the “spheres”. The “spheres” then are evaluated and assigned a value. (Step 2A Prong 1)
7. “The method of claim 1 where the rest lengths of the springs in the spring and damper structures vary among the spring and damper structures.”
Adding a variable function the “rest lengths” is an evaluation of the “spring and damper structures”. This is done by observing the “spring and damper structures” and comparing the different “rest lengths”. (Step 2A Prong 1)
8. “The method of claim 1 where the amount of change in the rest length of each of the springs in the spring and damper structures is one of increased or decreased by a plastic deformation multiplier such that the resulting rest length more closely matches an actual length between connected spheres than if the multiplier had not been applied”.
The adjusting of the “rest length” in the model when compared to the “actual length” is an observation and evaluation. The “actual length” is observed and then the “rest length” has a “plastic deformation multiplier” applied based on an evaluation to correct the lengths to be closer. The “plastic deformation multiplier” is also a mathematical relationship. (Step 2A Prong 1)
9. “The method of claim 1 wherein the spheres exert friction forces upon each other when they make sliding contact.”
The “friction forces” are determined based on an observation of the “spheres” when “sliding contact” is made. The evaluation looks at the “collection of spheres” and evaluates how the forces between “spheres” are affected. (Step 2A Prong 1)
10. The method of claim 7 where the plastic deformation multiplier for each of the springs of the spring and damper structures is determined as a function of a property value in the cell associated with that spring and damper structure.
The “function of a property value” is further evaluation of the “plastic deformation multiplier” based on the observation of the “spring and damper structure”. The “function of a property value” is also a mathematical relationship. (Step 2A Prong 1)
11. The method of claim 1 where the collection of spheres is derived by filling the volume of a part mesh.
The “collection of spheres” is observed when “filling the volume of a part mesh”. When the “volume” contains the “collection of spheres”, the shape can be observed and evaluated. (Step 2A Prong 1)
12. The method of claim 1 further comprising: comparing the final distorted positions of the spheres to the initial positions of the spheres to define a vector field of distortion vectors.
The “vector field of distortion vectors” is based on an evaluation and comparison of the “final distorted positions” and “initial positions”. The “vector field of distortion vectors” is also a mathematical relationship.
13. “The method of claim 11 further comprising: applying the negative of the vector field of distortion vectors to the initial positions of the spheres; and increasing the diameters of each of the spheres to ensure near-contact among neighboring spheres to create a negative offset shape; and adjusting the rest lengths of the springs of the spring and damper structures connecting the spheres to match the actual lengths of the spheres”
The “negative of the vector field of distortion vectors” is an evaluation and mathematical relationship. When “increasing the diameters of each of the spheres”, the diameter is increased until “near-contact among neighboring spheres” which is done by observation to determine when contact is made. Adding a variable function the “rest lengths” is an evaluation of the “spring and damper structures”. This is done by observing the “spring and damper structures” and comparing the different “rest lengths”. (Step 2A Prong 1)
14. “The method of claim 9 further comprising: repeating the step of simulating the post-processing step using the negative offset shape as an input to provide a second set of final distorted positions of the spheres; comparing the second final distorted positions of spheres to the initial positions of the spheres to define a second vector field of distortion vectors; and applying the second vector field of distortion vectors to the negative offset shape.”
The “negative offset shape as an input to provide a second set of final distorted positions of the spheres” is an evaluation and mathematical relationship. The “initial position” is compared to the “second final distorted positions”, which is an observation of the positions and an evaluation to determine the results. The “applying the second vector field of distortion vectors to the negative offset shape” is further evaluation and a mathematical relationship. (Step 2A Prong 1)
15. “The method of claim 10 further comprising: halting the repeating of simulations of post-processing steps when a deviation of distortion vectors has a magnitude that falls below a threshold.”
The “threshold” determines when the “halting the repeating of simulations” occurs, i.e. ending the simulation. The “threshold” is compared to the “deviation of distortion vectors” when is an observation of the “deviation” and ending the simulation based on when the “threshold” is met based on an evaluation. (Step 2A Prong 1)
16. The method of claim 11 further comprising the step of: comparing the final negative offset positions to the initial positions to define a negative offset distortion map.
The comparison of the “final negative offset positions” and “the initial positions” is an observation of the positions and an evaluation of the different between the two positions. (Step 2A Prong 1)
17. “The method of claim 15 wherein the negative distortion map of vectors is applied to the vertices of a part mesh to create a negative offset part mesh.”
The “vectors is applied” is performing a mathematical relationship. The result of applying the “vectors” is based on the observation of the “part mesh” and an evaluation of how the “vectors” are applied. (Step 2A Prong 1)
18. “The method of claim 16 wherein prior to applying the vertices of the part mesh to create the negative part mesh, increasing a triangle resolution of the part mesh.”
The “increasing a triangle resolution” is done by evaluating the “mesh” and adding or decreasing the number of “spheres” or girds in the “mesh”. (Step 2A Prong 1)
19. “The method of claim 5 wherein the solving operation utilizes a restoring force of each of the springs of the spring and damper structures that is determined by a restoring level that is a function of a difference in an actual length versus the resting lengths of each of the springs of the spring and damper structures and an elasticity property of one of the cells associated with one of the spheres connected to each of the springs of the spring and damper structures.”
The “function of a difference in an actual length versus the resting lengths” is a mathematical relationship. The “function” is performed by the “observation” of the “lengths” and an evaluation of the “difference”. The “elasticity property” is applied to the “spheres” based on the evaluation. (Step 2A Prong 1)
20. “The method of claim 9 wherein the magnitude of the plastic deformation multiplier is a function of stress, strain, and temperature of a cell associated with a sphere connected to a spring and damper structure.”
The assigning of the values of “temperature, stress, strain, material compliance and density” is an observation of the “spheres”. The “spheres” then are evaluated and assigned a value. (Step 2A Prong 1)
21. “The method of claim 2 further comprising: after at least one of the sequential steps, using a collection of externally facing sphere centers to generate an intermediate deformed part mesh; determining points on the intermediate deformed mesh that represent contact points with the rigid bodies, and passing mesh, contacts and body forces to a finite element analysis engine to determine stress throughout the volume of the intermediate deformed part mesh; and mapping the stresses at various points back to cells.”
The “intermediate deformed part mesh” is based on the observation of the “collection of externally facing sphere centers” which form an overall shape of the object being modeled. The “contact points with the rigid bodies” are where the different elements meet in the model, which can be determined by observation and judgement. The determination of “stress” is based on an evaluation of how the “collection of spheres” perform under deformation. The “mapping the stresses” occurs based on the evaluation of the spheres. (Step 2A Prong 1)
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 11-12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
San-Vicente et al., “Cubical Mass-Spring Model Design Based on a Tensile Deformation Test and Nonlinear Material Model” [2012] (hereinafter ‘San-Vicente’) in view of
Santhanam et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0247312 A1 (hereinafter ‘Santhanam’) further in view of
Nakata et al., “DEM loading simulation of a crushable grain sediment” [2006] (hereinafter ‘Nakata’).
Regarding Claim 1: A method of simulating dynamic change in the shape of a volume of material, comprising the steps of:
San-Vicente teaches simulating an object as a collection of spheres in a regular three-dimensional grid, (San-Vicente Fig. 11)
PNG
media_image2.png
266
798
media_image2.png
Greyscale
San-Vicente teaches each sphere having an initial position, and (Pg. 236 right col 1st paragraph San-Vicente “…initial position (xn, yn, zn)…”)
San-Vicente teaches each sphere connected to its neighboring spheres by a set of spring … structures; (Pg. 231 right col section 3.1 7th paragraph San-Vicente “…To ensure the maximal degrees of freedom and a symmetric behavior along the x, y, and z-axes, three types of linear springs are used to connect each of the vertices with the remaining seven vertices…”)
San-Vicente teaches wherein the spring … structures are configured to collide and resist overlapping each other such the three-dimensional grid behaves dynamically as a deformable solid; (Pg. 238 left col section 4.4 last paragraph San-Vicente “…As usual in this kind of applications, several models have been combined to build the deformable object: a visualization model that contains a detailed triangle mesh with 36,758 elements (see Fig. 11a), a deformable model composed of 706 mass points and 6,951 springs (see Fig. 11b), and a collision model of 271 spheres (see Fig. 11c)…”)
San-Vicente teaches simulating a post-processing step as a series of sequential steps, wherein for each step, adjusting a rest length of each of the spring and damper structures and (Fig. 11 and Pg. 231 right col section 3.1 last paragraph – pg. 232 left col 1st paragraph San-Vicente “…In this work, the z-axis indicates the direction along which the stress is applied and x, y, and z-axes are considered as the transversal directions. Accordingly, Lx, Ly, and Lz will denote the lengths of the deformed cube along the corresponding axes…” pg. 238 right col 1st paragraph “…Some frames of the deformation sequence taken when interacting with the model are displayed in Fig. 12…”)
San-Vicente teaches followed by a solving operation whereby the spheres of the collection of spheres move to reach a higher state of equilibrium; and (Pg. 233 left col 2nd paragraph San-Vicente “…Considering the symmetries of the cube and the applied forces, it is sufficient to study the equilibrium of a particular mass-point as the remaining nodes are subjected to identical forces. In particular, node 6 will be taken as example…”)
San-Vicente teaches whereby the simulation of the post-processing step represents non-uniform shrinkage, swelling and distortion of the object and where the simulation provides a set of final distorted positions of the spheres. (Fig. 12, Fig. 11, and pg. 237 left col 2nd paragraph San-Vicente “…In this expression pn denotes the final position of the nth node and the superscript stands for the specific deformation model; the designed MSM or the reference FEM…”)
PNG
media_image3.png
154
786
media_image3.png
Greyscale
San-Vicente does not appear to explicitly disclose
spring and damper structures
However, Santhanam teaches spring and damper structures ([0067] Santhanam “…After mass element generation, an MSD connection initialization algorithm is applied at step 28, which connects the mass elements with each other using a spring damper formulation to ensure that the mass elements deform in a physically realistic manner…”)
San-Vicente and Santhanam are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, computer modeling.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the spring structures as disclosed by San-Vicente by spring and damper structures as disclosed by Santhanam.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to include various representations and variations as discussed in [0010] by Santhanam “…Physics-based methods, such as Finite Element Methods and Mass-Spring Models, have been applied for deforming anatomy of the torso, and the biomechanical nature of these models also allows for the inclusion of subject specific tumor representations and day-to-day variations in the treatment…”
San-Vicente and Santhanam do not appear to explicitly disclose
a diameter of each of the spheres
However, Nakata teaches a diameter of each of the spheres (Pg. 262 left col last paragraph Nakata “…Firstly 378 exospheres of 1mm diameter were created in a space of (6.66 mm)3 so as to be in equilibrium…”)
San-Vicente, Santhanam, and Nakata are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, computer modeling.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the followed by a solving operation whereby the spheres of the collection of spheres move to reach a higher state of equilibrium as disclosed by San-Vicente and Santhanam by diameter of each of the spheres as disclosed by Nakata.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to better model mechanical behavior as discussed on pg. 261 left col 2nd paragraph “…Because previous work on mechanical behaviour is limited to axi-symmetric (conventional triaxial compression) conditions, one purpose of this paper is to present the mechanical behaviour under plane strain conditions for DEM crushable grains…”
Regarding Claim 2: San-Vicente, Santhanam, and Nakata teach The method of claim 1
San-Vicente teaches wherein during the series of sequential steps, the rest lengths of the spring and damper structures are adjusted in part according to the orientation of spring and damper structures with respect to a global coordinate frame, thereby simulating varying shrinkage rates in the directions aligned with the axes of the global coordinate frame. (Pg. 235 right col last paragraph and pg. 236 left col 1st paragraph San-Vicente “…The first point to consider is that in the cube there are only four internal diagonal springs, three times less than edge and face diagonal springs. Second, the strain induced in a test affects each spring in a different way. That is, given some particular strain "z the elongation of each spring is different due to their original orientations (α and β)…”)
Regarding Claim 3: San-Vicente, Santhanam, and Nakata teach The method of claim 1 further comprising,
San-Vicente teaches during the step of simulating a post-processing step, adding a set of rigid objects and forces to the collection of spheres and wherein the solving the operation includes conducting a collision detection among the rigid objects and the collection of spheres and where the spheres of the collection of spheres and the rigid objects are subject to motion according to forces applied to them. (Pg. 233 left col section 3.1.3 6th paragraph San-Vicente “…Different definitions of stress and strain are used in solid mechanics. Among them are the Cauchy true stress and the logarithmic strain. Although these magnitudes are defined for a continuum context, in a tensile test it is possible to define an equivalent relation in the discrete domain, assuming that the total applied load over a face is the sum of the external nodal forces…”)
Regarding Claim 4: San-Vicente, Santhanam, and Nakata teach The method of claim 1
Santhanam teaches wherein during the simulating the post-processing step, halting the adjustment of the rest length of at least one spring and damper structure when the rest length of that spring and damper structure has been adjusted to a threshold magnitude. ([0070] Santhanam “…When a nearby mass element is within a threshold distance ( determined by the voxel size of the input CT) from the search element, an MSD connection is established at step 48, and the nearby mass element becomes a connected element for the given search element, as illustrated in FIG. 7…”)
Regarding Claim 5: San-Vicente, Santhanam, and Nakata teach The method of claim 3
Nakata teaches wherein during the simulating the post-processing step the rigid objects impart friction induced reaction forces upon the spheres. (Pg. 263 right col 2nd paragraph Nakata “…Where the mobilised friction angle was calculated as
PNG
media_image4.png
26
152
media_image4.png
Greyscale
…”)
Regarding Claim 7: San-Vicente, Santhanam, and Nakata teach The method of claim 1
San-Vicente teaches where the rest lengths of the springs in the spring and damper structures vary among the spring and damper structures. (Pg. 232 left col last paragraph “…Indeed, the edge springs aligned with x- and y-axes remain in resting state…”)
Regarding Claim 9: San-Vicente, Santhanam, and Nakata teach The method of claim 1
Nakata teaches wherein the spheres exert friction forces upon each other when they make sliding contact. (Pg. 261 right col 3rd paragraph Nakata “…The simple contact bond can be envisioned as a pair of elastic springs at a bonding point. The maximum tensile force and the maximum shear force that it can withstand are here made equal to S. This approach follows Robertson and Bolton (2001), McDowell and Harireche (2002) and Cheng, et al. (2003). Slip occurs between unbonded objects in contact, according to Coulomb friction with a coefficient μ…”)
Regarding Claim 11: San-Vicente, Santhanam, and Nakata teach The method of claim 1
San-Vicente teaches where the collection of spheres is derived by filling the volume of a part mesh. (Fig. 11 San-Vicente)
Regarding Claim 12: San-Vicente, Santhanam, and Nakata teach The method of claim 1 further comprising:
San-Vicente teaches comparing the final distorted positions of the spheres to the initial positions of the spheres to define a vector field of distortion vectors. (Pg. 236 right col 1st paragraph San-Vicente “…In the tests number 1, 2, and 4 some of the remaining nodes have been displaced from their initial position (xn, yn, zn) to a new fixed final position (x’n, y’n, z’n)…”)
Regarding Claim 19: San-Vicente, Santhanam, and Nakata teach The method of claim 5
San-Vicente teaches wherein the solving operation utilizes a restoring force of each of the springs of the spring and damper structures that is determined by a restoring level that is a function of a difference in an actual length versus the resting lengths of each of the springs of the spring and damper structures and an elasticity property of one of the cells associated with one of the spheres connected to each of the springs of the spring and damper structures. (Pg. 233 left col 7th paragraph San-Vicente “…Likewise, the logarithmic strain (5) along the i-axis may be estimated as the logarithm of the relation between the final length and the original reference length…” pg. 233 left col 3rd paragraph San-Vicente “…Every elastic connection between nodes is modeled using linear springs, that is, the force made by the spring that connects nodes i and j is proportional to the elongation of the spring (ΔLij), ks being the corresponding stiffness coefficient (1)…”)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
San-Vicente et al., “Cubical Mass-Spring Model Design Based on a Tensile Deformation Test and Nonlinear Material Model” [2012] (hereinafter ‘San-Vicente’) in view of
Santhanam et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0247312 A1 (hereinafter ‘Santhanam’) further in view of
Nakata et al., “DEM loading simulation of a crushable grain sediment” [2006] (hereinafter ‘Nakata’) further in view of
Huang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0107823 A1 (hereinafter ‘Huang’).
Regarding Claim 6: San-Vicente, Santhanam, and Nakata teach The method of claim 1
San-Vicente teaches wherein each sphere is associated with a cell that maintains a set of properties including … stress, strain, material compliance and density. (Pg. 233 left col 4th paragraph San-Vicente “…Equations (2) and (3) will be helpful for the evaluation of stress and strain magnitudes as it will be seen in following sections…” pg. 233 right col 4th paragraph “…In the latter, the sources of the reference data are theoretical material models or the response of other existing simulation models, like FEM models for example…” Pg. 264 right col last paragraph Nakata “…This result could be related to the interpretation of results from in-situ soundings. For example, cone penetration resistance data have been related to the relative density and the shear strength measured as the angle of shear resistance…”)
San-Vicente, Santhanam, and Nakata do not appear to explicitly disclose
temperature
However, Huang teaches temperature ([0109] Huang “…In consideration of the location-irrelevant model describing shrinkage by temperature and phase changes, the volumetric shrinkage should be proportional to the entire volume of the product based on the knowledge of heat transfer literature…”)
San-Vicente, Santhanam, Nakata, and Huang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, computer modeling.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the wherein each sphere is associated with a cell that maintains a set of properties including stress, strain, material compliance and density as disclosed by San-Vicente, Santhanam, and Nakata by temperature as disclosed by Huang.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to better understand part deformation as discussed in [0011] by Huang “…To summarize, part shape deformation due to material shrinkage has long been studied, e.g., in casting and injection molding processes…”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14, 16, and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 8, 10, 15, 17, and 20-21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Claims 1-21 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN E JOHANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-3PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emerson Puente can be reached at 5712723652. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN E JOHANSEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights