DETAILED ACTION
The office action is responsive to an application filed on 2/21/23 and is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority to U.S. Provisional Patent
Application 63/312,757 filed on 2/22/22.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performance of the limitation in the mind or by pencil and paper and as a mathematical concept.
Claims 1, 10 and 19
Regarding step 1, claims 1, 10 and 19 are directed towards an apparatus, a method and a medium, which has the claims fall within the eligible statutory categories of processes, machines, manufactures and composition of matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 10 recites “identifying the plurality of digital models to be assembled post production”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 10 recites “generating one or more candidate structures representing an assembly of the identified plurality of digital models”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “extracting a system network based on types and interactions of the identified plurality of digital models” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the system network is or what the types and interactions are of the identified plurality of digital models. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “generating, by a processing device based on the system network, one or more candidate structures representing an assembly of the identified plurality of digital models” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the one or more candidate structures are or what the identified plurality of digital models are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and generating, based on the one or more candidate structures, a consolidated model to be manufactured and functionally replace the identified plurality of digital models.” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the one or more candidate structures are or what the identified plurality of digital models are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim includes the additional element of a processing device. The processing device is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitations of “extracting a system network based on types and interactions of the identified plurality of digital models” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the system network is or what the types and interactions are of the identified plurality of digital models. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “generating, by a processing device based on the system network, one or more candidate structures representing an assembly of the identified plurality of digital models” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the one or more candidate structures are or what the identified plurality of digital models are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and generating, based on the one or more candidate structures, a consolidated model to be manufactured and functionally replace the identified plurality of digital models.” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the one or more candidate structures are or what the identified plurality of digital models are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the processing device amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Claim 1
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites “identify the plurality of digital models to be assembled post production”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “generate, based on the system network, one or more candidate structures representing an assembly of the identified plurality of digital models”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “extract a system network based on types and interactions of the identified plurality of digital models” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the system network is or what the types and interactions are of the identified plurality of digital models. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “generate, based on the system network, one or more candidate structures representing an assembly of the identified plurality of digital models” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the one or more candidate structures are or what the identified plurality of digital models are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and generate, based on the one or more candidate structures, a consolidated model to be manufactured and functionally replace the identified plurality of digital models.” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the one or more candidate structures are or what the identified plurality of digital models are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim includes the additional elements of a processing device and memory. The processing device and memory are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitations of “extract a system network based on types and interactions of the identified plurality of digital models” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the system network is or what the types and interactions are of the identified plurality of digital models. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “generate, based on the system network, one or more candidate structures representing an assembly of the identified plurality of digital models” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the one or more candidate structures are or what the identified plurality of digital models are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and generate, based on the one or more candidate structures, a consolidated model to be manufactured and functionally replace the identified plurality of digital models.” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the one or more candidate structures are or what the identified plurality of digital models are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the processing device and memory amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Claim 19
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 19 recites “identify the plurality of digital models to be assembled post production”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 19 recites “generate, based on the system network, one or more candidate structures representing an assembly of the identified plurality of digital models”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “extract a system network based on types and interactions of the identified plurality of digital models” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the system network is or what the types and interactions are of the identified plurality of digital models. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “generate, based on the system network, one or more candidate structures representing an assembly of the identified plurality of digital models” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the one or more candidate structures are or what the identified plurality of digital models are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and generate, based on the one or more candidate structures, a consolidated model to be manufactured and functionally replace the identified plurality of digital models.” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the one or more candidate structures are or what the identified plurality of digital models are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim includes the additional elements of a processing device and medium. The processing device and memory are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitations of “extract a system network based on types and interactions of the identified plurality of digital models” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the system network is or what the types and interactions are of the identified plurality of digital models. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “generate, based on the system network, one or more candidate structures representing an assembly of the identified plurality of digital models” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the one or more candidate structures are or what the identified plurality of digital models are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and generate, based on the one or more candidate structures, a consolidated model to be manufactured and functionally replace the identified plurality of digital models.” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the one or more candidate structures are or what the identified plurality of digital models are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the processing device and medium amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Claims 2 and 11
Dependent claims 2 and 11 recites “receive an initial set of digital models comprising computer aided design (CAD) models”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims 2 and 11 recites “wherein each of the initial set of digital models is to be individually manufactured and assembled with others in the initial set of digital models.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 3 and 12
Dependent claims 3 and 12 recites “wherein the plurality of digital models is identified from the initial set of digital models based on a set of production context corresponding to the types and interactions of the identified plurality of digital models.”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the identified plurality of digital models are or what the set of production context is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Claims 4 and 13
Dependent claims 4 and 13 recites “wherein the set of production context comprises: a functional aspect of the identified plurality of digital models, including at least one of a key, a spacer, a housing, or a load bearing function performed by each of the plurality of digital models”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claims 4 and 13 recites “and a connection aspect of the identified plurality of digital models, including at least a relative movement or fixation between two or more of the plurality of digital models, wherein the connection aspect represents an assembly relationship of the two or more of the plurality of digital models.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 5 and 14
Dependent claims 5 and 14 recites “abstracting each of the identified plurality of digital models into a volume-less symbol”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claims 5 and 14 recites “and defining a relationship between every two of the identified plurality of digital models in a design structure matrix.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 6 and 15
Dependent claims 6 and 15 recites “wherein the relationship comprises at least one of: a relative motion or a lack thereof, stiffness, an electrical connection, a heat energy transfer, a boundary condition, or a loading condition.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 7 and 16
Dependent claims 7 and 16 recites “computing the one or more candidate structures based on a combination or a permutation of a subset of the volume-less symbols of the system network based on the defined relationship for different levels of complexity”. This limitation is computing one or more candidate structures. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 8, 17 and 20
Dependent claims 8, 17 and 20 recites “performing topology optimization based on the one or more candidate structures and constraints of at least one of loading conditions, boundary conditions, manufacturing parameters, costs, or performance”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the one or more candidate structures are or what the loading conditions, boundary conditions, manufacturing parameters, costs, or performance are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Dependent claims 8, 17 and 20 recites “and generating a set of parameters of the consolidated model for manufacturing based on results of the topology optimization.”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the results of the topology optimization are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Claims 9 and 18
Dependent claims 9 and 18 recites “wherein the set of parameters of the consolidated model is used in additive manufacturing, subtractive manufacturing, or a combination of both.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 1-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inhyuck et
al. (KR 20200073441) (Translation) in view of online reference Lightweight in Automotive Components by Forming Technology, written by Rosenthal et al.
With respect to claim 1, Inhyuck et al. discloses “An apparatus for consolidating a plurality of digital models to be manufactured” as [Inhyuck et al. (Pg. 2, Description of Embodiments, 5th paragraph, “The database-based lightweight model visualization system 100 according to an embodiment of the present invention generates a lightweight model separated into assembly data and index data that become indexes (connection information) when large-capacity CAD data (large-capacity models) are input to the database.”, Inhyuck et al. Pg. 3, 8th paragraph, “Additionally, CAD models may contain non-geometry information such as materials, tolerances, and manufacturing techniques.”, Inhyuck et al. Pg. 4, 1st paragraph, “According to an embodiment, non-formal information such as PMI (Product Manufacturing Information) information (schedule data, production data, other data, etc.) may be further included.”)];
“a memory” as [Inhyuck et al. (Pg. 2, Description of Embodiments, 5th paragraph, “The database-based lightweight model visualization system 100 according to an embodiment of the present invention generates a lightweight model separated into assembly data and index data that become indexes (connection information) when large-capacity CAD data (large-capacity models) are input to the database.”, Inhyuck et al. Pg. 3 1st paragraph, “The database-based lightweight model visualization system 100 according to the present exemplary embodiment includes a lightweight model DB management apparatus 110, a lightweight model DB120, and a lightweight model viewer 130.”)];
“a processing device operably coupled to the memory” as [Inhyuck et al. (Pg. 5, 5th paragraph, “The above-described database-based lightweight model visualization method may also be implemented in the form of a recording medium including computer-executable instructions, such as computer-implemented applications or program modules. Computer readable media can be any available media that can be accessed by a computer and includes both volatile and nonvolatile media removable and non-removable media.”)];
“identify the plurality of digital models to be assembled post production” as [Inhyuck et al. (Pg. 2, Description of Embodiments, 5th paragraph, “The database-based lightweight model visualization system 100 according to an embodiment of the present invention generates a lightweight model separated into assembly data and index data that become indexes (connection information) when large-capacity CAD data (large-capacity models) are input to the database.”, Inhyuck et al. Pg. 3, 4th paragraph, “The large-capacity model input unit 112 receives a CAD model to be converted from a large-capacity to light-weight and stored in the lightweight model DB 120. The large-capacity CAD model may be a three-dimensional model of a structure having multiple elements (parts) such as ships and offshore structures.”, Inhyuck et al. Pg. 3, 6th paragraph, “The large-capacity model can be a CAD model as described above. The model may be composed of a number of parts, and the large-capacity model may be divided into assembly structure information representing a combination relationship of each part and model shape information representing a shape of each part.”)];
“extract a system network based on types and interactions of the identified plurality of digital models” as [Inhyuck et al. (Pg. 3, 6th paragraph “The large-capacity model can be a CAD model as described above. The model may be composed of a number of parts, and the large-capacity model may be divided into assembly structure information representing a combination relationship of each part and model shape information representing a shape of each part.”, The examiner considers the assembly of the number of parts to be the system network, since the system network is a representation of the assembly of parts, see paragraph [0025] of the specification)];
“generate, based on the system network, one or more candidate structures representing an assembly of the identified plurality of digital models” as [Inhyuck et al. (Pg. 2, Description of Embodiments, 5th paragraph, “The database-based lightweight model visualization system 100 according to an embodiment of the present invention generates a lightweight model separated into assembly data and index data that become indexes (connection information) when large-capacity CAD data (large-capacity models) are input to the database.”, Inhyuck et al. Pg. 3, 5th paragraph, “The conversion unit 114 separates the large-capacity model input through the large-capacity model input unit 112 according to a predetermined algorithm, and converts the large-capacity model into a lightweight model having a new data format.”, Inhyuck et al. Pg. 4, 2nd paragraph, “In this embodiment, the assembly structure information is information indicating a combination structure for each part constituting the corresponding lightweight model, and functions as an index for linking the remaining information, that is, connection data.”)];
“and generate, based on the one or more candidate structures, a consolidated model” as [Inhyuck et al. (Pg. 3, 5th paragraph, “The conversion unit 114 separates the large-capacity model input through the large-capacity model input unit 112 according to a predetermined algorithm, and converts the large-capacity model into a lightweight model having a new data format.”, Inhyuck et al. Pg. 4, 2nd paragraph, “In this embodiment, the assembly structure information is information indicating a combination structure for each part constituting the corresponding lightweight model, and functions as an index for linking the remaining information, that is, connection data.”)];
While Inhyuck et al. teaches generating one or more candidate structures representing an assembly of the identified plurality of digital models and generating a consolidated model based on the one or more candidate structures, Inhyuck et al. does not explicitly disclose “and generate, based on the one or more candidate structures, a consolidated model to be manufactured and functionally replace the identified plurality of digital models”
Rosenthal et al. discloses “and generate, based on the one or more candidate structures, a consolidated model to be manufactured and functionally replace the identified plurality of digital models” as [Rosenthal et al. (Pg. 196, left col., System lightweight design, 1st paragraph, “This means the combination of parts to a system that is lighter than a reference system. The system always consists of components that are combined to an assembly, such as a car or modules of a car like the structural cage. To produce a light system, the components of the system need to be light by themselves. The integration of functions or the reduction in parts by integrating them into a new component is system lightweight design as well. To reach the aim of light parts, the next level of lightweight design is a subset of system lightweight design.”, Rosenthal et al. Pg. 205, sec. 3.4.1 Damage in Cold Forging, 1st paragraph, “Product properties are dependent on the damage evolution introduced by the forming operation. Reducing and knowing the amount of damage help to further increase the lightweighting potential. Tekkaya et al. [41] experimentally investigated the damage evolution and fatigue strength of cold-forged parts and of parts produced by air bending. The increase in the extrusion ratio leads to a lower damage and increased fatigue strength, whereas in an air bending operation the damage can be influenced by process variations such as stress superposition. Cold-forged parts with different axial stress values during the extrusion process exhibit different damage evolutions, as shown in Fig. 19a. Modeling parameters are as follows: cone angle 2α = 90°; friction coefficient m = 0.08 (Coulomb); elastic die (55NiCrMoV6); elastic–plastic workpiece (16MnCr5); initial rod diameter d0.”, Rosenthal et al. Pg. 206, sec. 4.1 Combination of Additive Manufacturing and Forming, 2nd – 3rd paragraph, “To overcome this problem, Rosenthal et al. [44] proposed a new process combination that utilizes the benefits of additive manufacturing (production of complex sheets) and forming technology (leads to strain hardening). The subsequent forming of additively manufactured parts enables the production of flat sheets with a core structure and integrated functions that are stacked in the build chamber and nearly uses the whole available build chamber volume, as shown in Fig. 22, etc.”, Fig. 22)];
Inhyuck et al. and Rosenthal et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing the lightweighting process of assembling components.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Inhyuck et al. of generating one or more candidate structures representing an assembly of the identified plurality of digital models and generating a consolidated model based on the one or more candidate structures by incorporating and generate, based on the one or more candidate structures, a consolidated model to be manufactured and functionally replace the identified plurality of digital models as taught by Rosenthal et al. for the purpose of increasing the strength and stiffness of components.
Inhyuck et al. in view of Rosenthal et al. teaches and generate, based on the one or more candidate structures, a consolidated model to be manufactured and functionally replace the identified plurality of digital models.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Rosenthal et al. teaches that by increasing the strength and stiffness of components, allows for a more accurate dimensioning of components. This allows for a reduction in the total mass and an increase performance of vehicle components (Rosenthal et al., Abstract, “The integration of functions by a hot extrusion process for the manufacturing of shape memory alloys is presented. An in-depth understanding of the newly developed processes, methodologies and effects allows for a more accurate dimensioning of components. This facilitates a reduction in the total mass and an increasing performance of vehicle components”).
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Inhyuck et al. and Rosenthal et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 1 above, and Inhyuck et al. further discloses “wherein the processing device and the memory are further to: receive an initial set of digital models comprising computer aided design (CAD) models” as [Inhyuck et al. (Pg. 2, Description of Embodiments, 5th paragraph, “The database-based lightweight model visualization system 100 according to an embodiment of the present invention generates a lightweight model separated into assembly data and index data that become indexes (connection information) when large-capacity CAD data (large-capacity models) are input to the database.”, Inhyuck et al. Pg. 3, 6th paragraph, “The large-capacity model can be a CAD model as described above. The model may be composed of a number of parts, and the large-capacity model may be divided into assembly structure information representing a combination relationship of each part and model shape information representing a shape of each part.”)];
Rosenthal et al. discloses “wherein each of the initial set of digital models is to be individually manufactured and assembled with others in the initial set of digital models.” as [Rosenthal et al. (Pg. 206, sec. 4.1 Combination of Additive Manufacturing and Forming, 2nd – 3rd paragraph, “To overcome this problem, Rosenthal et al. [44] proposed a new process combination that utilizes the benefits of additive manufacturing (production of complex sheets) and forming technology (leads to strain hardening). The subsequent forming of additively manufactured parts enables the production of flat sheets with a core structure and integrated functions that are stacked in the build chamber and nearly uses the whole available build chamber volume, as shown in Fig. 22, etc.”, Fig. 22)];
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Inhyuck et al. and Rosenthal et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 2 above, and Inhyuck et al. further discloses “wherein the plurality of digital models is identified from the initial set of digital models based on a set of production context corresponding to the types and interactions of the identified plurality of digital models.” as [Inhyuck et al. (Pg. 3, 6th paragraph “The large-capacity model can be a CAD model as described above. The model may be composed of a number of parts, and the large-capacity model may be divided into assembly structure information representing a combination relationship of each part and model shape information representing a shape of each part.”, Inhyuck et al. Pg. 4, 2nd paragraph, “In this embodiment, the assembly structure information is information indicating a combination structure for each part constituting the corresponding lightweight model, and functions as an index for linking the remaining information, that is, connection data.”)];
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Inhyuck et al. and Rosenthal et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 3 above, and Rosenthal et al. further discloses “wherein the set of production context comprises: a functional aspect of the identified plurality of digital models, including at least one of a key, a spacer, a housing, or a load bearing function performed by each of the plurality of digital models” as [Rosenthal et al. (Pg. 206, sec. 4.1 Combination of Additive Manufacturing and Forming, 2nd – 4th paragraph, “To overcome this problem, Rosenthal et al. [44] proposed a new process combination that utilizes the benefits of additive manufacturing (production of complex sheets) and forming technology (leads to strain hardening). The subsequent forming of additively manufactured parts enables the production of flat sheets with a core structure and integrated functions that are stacked in the build chamber and nearly uses the whole available build chamber volume, as shown in Fig. 22, etc.”, Fig. 22)];
Inhyuck et al. discloses “and a connection aspect of the identified plurality of digital models, including at least a relative movement or fixation between two or more of the plurality of digital models, wherein the connection aspect represents an assembly relationship of the two or more of the plurality of digital models.” as [Inhyuck et al. (Pg. 3, 6th paragraph “The large-capacity model can be a CAD model as described above. The model may be composed of a number of parts, and the large-capacity model may be divided into assembly structure information representing a combination relationship of each part and model shape information representing a shape of each part.”, Inhyuck et al. Pg. 3, 7th paragraph “The model shape information includes mesh data and other shape data other than the mesh. The assembly structure information represents a top-down connection relationship to the shape information of each part for visualizing the model based on the model shape information composed of a plurality of mesh data.”, Inhyuck et al. Pg. 4, 2nd paragraph, “In this embodiment, the assembly structure information is information indicating a combination structure for each part constituting the corresponding lightweight model, and functions as an index for linking the remaining information, that is, connection data.”)];
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Inhyuck et al. and Rosenthal et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 1 above, and Inhyuck et al. further discloses “abstracting each of the identified plurality of digital models into a volume-less symbol” as [Inhyuck et al. (Pg. 2, Description of Embodiments, 5th paragraph, “The database-based lightweight model visualization system 100 according to an embodiment of the present invention generates a lightweight model separated into assembly data and index data that become indexes (connection information) when large-capacity CAD data (large-capacity models) are input to the database. When a lightweight model to be saved and visualized through the viewer is selected, only data necessary for visualization is retrieved and delivered with connection information so that a certain amount of shape data is always visible, so that users can always utilize similar performance and quality models.”, The examiner considers the lightweight model being visualized as being abstracting the identified plurality of digital models into a volume-less symbol, since the parts of lightweight model are being viewed as an assembly)];
“and defining a relationship between every two of the identified plurality of digital models in a design structure matrix.” as [Inhyuck et al. (Pg. 3, 6th paragraph “The large-capacity model can be a CAD model as described above. The model may be composed of a number of parts, and the large-capacity model may be divided into assembly structure information representing a combination relationship of each part and model shape information representing a shape of each part.”, Inhyuck et al. Pg. 3, 7th paragraph “The model shape information includes mesh data and other shape data other than the mesh. The assembly structure information represents a top-down connection relationship to the shape information of each part for visualizing the model based on the model shape information composed of a plurality of mesh data.”)];
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Inhyuck et al. and Rosenthal et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 5 above, and Inhyuck et al. further discloses “wherein the relationship comprises at least one of: a relative motion or a lack thereof, stiffness, an electrical connection, a heat energy transfer, a boundary condition, or a loading condition.” as [Inhyuck et al. (Pg. 3, 11th paragraph, “The storage unit 116 may also store bounding box information and/or edge information. The bounding box information may include attribute values such as the shape, size, and coordinates of a rectangular box-shaped bounding box indicating a range occupied by model shape information for each part belonging to the converted lightweight model. Edge information may include attribute values, such as length and coordinates of edges (edges), when model shape information for each part is divided into a boundary representation and/or a wireframe.”)];
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Inhyuck et al. and Rosenthal et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 6 above, and Rosenthal et al. further discloses “wherein the processing device and the memory are to generate the one or more candidate structures representing the assembly of the identified plurality of digital models by: computing the one or more candidate structures based on a combination or a permutation of a subset of the volume-less symbols of the system network based on the defined relationship for different levels of complexity.” as [Rosenthal et al. (Pg. 195, right col. (2) Structure lightweight design, “It is a concept to develop and design parts by topology, shape and parameter optimization. The aim is to change the shape and form to reduce the weight while the stiffness and/or strength is increased or kept constant. The combination of structures to an assembly can lead to a light system; therefore, structure lightweight design is a subset of system lightweight design.”, Rosenthal et al. Pg. 196, left col. (3) System lightweight design, 1st paragraph, “This means the combination of parts to a system that is lighter than a reference system. The system always consists of components that are combined to an assembly, such as a car or modules of a car like the structural cage. To produce a light system, the components of the system need to be light by themselves. The integration of functions or the reduction in parts by integrating them into a new component is system lightweight design as well. To reach the aim of light parts, the next level of lightweight design is a subset of system lightweight design.”)];
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Inhyuck et al. and Rosenthal et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 7 above, and Rosenthal et al. further discloses “wherein the processing device and the memory are to generate the consolidated model to be manufactured by: performing topology optimization based on the one or more candidate structures and constraints of at least one of loading conditions, boundary conditions, manufacturing parameters, costs, or performance” as [Rosenthal et al. (Pg. 195, right col. (2) Structure lightweight design, “It is a concept to develop and design parts by topology, shape and parameter optimization. The aim is to change the shape and form to reduce the weight while the stiffness and/or strength is increased or kept constant. The combination of structures to an assembly can lead to a light system; therefore, structure lightweight design is a subset of system lightweight design.”, Rosenthal et al. Pg. 201, sec. 3 Structure Lightweight Design by Forming Technology, “Structure lightweight design uses an optimized shape or topology to benefit from higher stiffnesses and structural advantages.”)];
“and generating a set of parameters of the consolidated model for manufacturing based on results of the topology optimization.” as [Rosenthal et al. (Pg. 195, right col. (2) Structure lightweight design, “It is a concept to develop and design parts by topology, shape and parameter optimization. The aim is to change the shape and form to reduce the weight while the stiffness and/or strength is increased or kept constant. The combination of structures to an assembly can lead to a light system; therefore, structure lightweight design is a subset of system lightweight design.”, Rosenthal et al. Pg. 205, sec. 3.4.1 Damage in Cold Forging, 1st paragraph, “Product properties are dependent on the damage evolution introduced by the forming operation. Reducing and knowing the amount of damage help to further increase the lightweighting potential. Tekkaya et al. [41] experimentally investigated the damage evolution and fatigue strength of cold-forged parts and of parts produced by air bending. The increase in the extrusion ratio leads to a lower damage and increased fatigue strength, whereas in an air bending operation the damage can be influenced by process variations such as stress superposition. Cold-forged parts with different axial stress values during the extrusion process exhibit different damage evolutions, as shown in Fig. 19a. Modeling parameters are as follows: cone angle 2α = 90°; friction coefficient m = 0.08 (Coulomb); elastic die (55NiCrMoV6); elastic–plastic workpiece (16MnCr5); initial rod diameter d0.”)];
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Inhyuck et al. and Rosenthal et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 8 above, and Rosenthal et al. further discloses “wherein the set of parameters of the consolidated model is used in additive manufacturing, subtractive manufacturing, or a combination of both.” as [Rosenthal et al. (Pg. 196, right col., 1st – 2nd paragraph, “Innovative processes and material concepts are required for the production of lightweight components. The majority of vehicle components are manufactured using forming
technologies. Figure 1 illustratively shows various vehicle components that can be manufactured using innovative forming processes. The figure is set up to navigate to the specific sections in this paper to give more information about each mentioned process. The corresponding parts that can be manufactured with the later presented processes are pointed out in Fig. 1 as well.
Electromobility is evolving rapidly during recent years and is getting a more important role in future manufacturing facilities; Fig. 2 shows potential use cases for forming applications in this comparatively new vehicle type. Comparing combustion vehicles and electric vehicles as shown in Figs. 1 and 2, the differences are clearly visible. Nearly the whole drive train assembly is substituted by electrical components such as the battery assembly and the electrical motors. Specially, the battery housing plays a key role in crash safetyness [2] and needs to be protected in case of an accident.”, Rosenthal et al. Pg. 206, sec. 4.1 Combination of Additive Manufacturing and Forming, 2nd – 4th paragraph, “To overcome this problem, Rosenthal et al. [44] proposed a new process combination that utilizes the benefits of additive manufacturing (production of complex sheets) and forming technology (leads to strain hardening). The subsequent forming of additively manufactured parts enables the production of flat sheets with a core structure and integrated functions that are stacked in the build chamber and nearly uses the whole available build chamber volume, as shown in Fig. 22, etc.”)];
With respect to claim 10, Inhyuck et al. discloses “A method for consolidating a plurality of digital models to be manufactured” as [Inhyuck et al. (Pg. 2, Description of Embodiments, 5th paragraph, “The database-based lightweight model visualization system 100 according to an embodiment of the present invention generates a lightweight model separated into assembly data and index data that become indexes (connection information) when large-capacity CAD data (large-capacity models) are input to the database.”, Inhyuck et al. Pg. 3, 8th paragraph, “Additionally, CAD models may contain non-geometry information such as materials, tolerances, and manufacturing techniques.”, Inhyuck et al. Pg. 4, 1st paragraph, “According to an embodiment, non-formal information such as PMI (Product Manufacturing Information) information (schedule data, production data, other data, etc.) may be further included.”)];
The other limitations of the claim recite the same substantive limitations of claim 1 above, and are rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claims 11-16, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as claims 2-7 above, and are rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 17, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as claim 8 above, and is rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 18, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as claim 9 above, and is rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 19, Inhyuck et al. discloses “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processing device for consolidating a plurality of digital models to be manufactured” as [Inhyuck et al. (Pg. 5, 5th paragraph, ““The above-described database-based lightweight model visualization method may also be implemented in the form of a recording medium including computer-executable instructions, such as computer-implemented applications or program modules. Computer readable media can be any available media that can be accessed by a computer and includes both volatile and nonvolatile media removable and non-removable media. In addition, computer readable media may include computer storage media. Computer storage media includes both volatile and nonvolatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information such as computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules or other data.”)];
The other limitations of the claim recite the same substantive limitations of claim 1 above, and are rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 20, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as claim 8 above, and is rejected using the same teachings.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The relevance of online Additive Manufacturing and Generative Design-a Match Made in Heaven, written by Stackpole is optimizing parts and products to meet weight, cost or thermal dynamic targets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD E COTHRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5594. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -5:30PM EST M-F.
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 F 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.
/BERNARD E COTHRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights