DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
PRIORITY
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority to provisional application PRO 63/317,255 filed on 03/07/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/6/23 and 8/6/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Examiner has considered the IDS’ as to the merits.
Specification
5. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph [0091] introduces method 600 with reference to FIG. 9, a flowchart, but the flowchart is labeled 100. Similarly, paragraph [0095] refers to methods 100 or 600 with reference to FIG. 10 but the flowchart in FIG. 10 is labeled 100, 400. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
i) In view of Step 1 of the analysis, claims 1-14 and 15-19 are each directed to a statutory category as a process, and claim 20 is directed to both an article of manufacture and an apparatus, which each represent a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
ii) In view of Step 2A, Prong One, independent claims 1, 15 and 20 recite abstract ideas based on Mental Processes which are performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper as well as and alternatively as Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As per claim 1, the limitation of “initializing a fixed finite element mesh” is analogous to a person judging and evaluating the placement and magnitude of vectors and constraints on a free-body diagram and thus falls under Mental Processes. Thus, the claim element recites the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. In addition, the step constitutes an abstract idea based on Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As per claim 1, the limitation “creating an updated version of the shape and the fiber path by iterating updates of the shape and the fiber path using the fixed finite element mesh” is analogous to a person performing repeated calculations across a framework and thus falls under Mental Processes. As written, the claim element recites the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. In addition, the step constitutes an abstract idea based on Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As per claim 1, the limitation of “initializing an adapted finite element mesh on the updated version of the shape and the fiber path” is analogous to a person judging and evaluating the placement and magnitude of vectors and constraints on a free-body diagram and thus falls under Mental Processes. Thus, the claim element recites the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. In addition, the step constitutes an abstract idea based on Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As per claim 1, the limitation “creating an optimized version of the shape and the fiber path by iterating optimizations of the shape and the fiber path using the adapted finite element mesh” is analogous to a person performing repeated calculations across a framework and thus falls under Mental Processes. As written, the claim element recites the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. In addition, the step constitutes an abstract idea based on Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As per claim 1, the limitation of “generating, using the optimized version of the shape and the fiber path, a specified design of the continuous fiber composite” is analogous to a person viewing the optimized results and deciding how to build the part, and thus falls under Mental Processes. Thus, the claim element recites the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
As per claim 15, and similarly recited in claim 20, the limitation “creating, using a fixed finite element mesh, an updated version of the shape and the fiber path” is analogous to a person building a finite element model of a system and thus falls under Mental Processes. Thus, the claim element recites the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. In addition, the step constitutes an abstract idea based on Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As per claim 15, and similarly recited in claim 20, the limitation “creating, using a adapted finite element mesh, an optimized version of the shape and the fiber path from the updated version of the shape and the fiber path” is analogous to a person building a finite element model of a system and thus falls under Mental Processes. Thus, the claim element recites the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. In addition, the step constitutes an abstract idea based on Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As per claim 15, and similarly recited in claim 20, the limitation of “generating, using the optimized version of the shape and the fiber path, a specified design of the continuous fiber composite” is analogous to a person viewing the optimized results and deciding how to build the part, and thus falls under Mental Processes. Thus, the claim element recites the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
As to claim 1, other than reciting “computer-implemented” and “computer model,” nothing in these claim elements preclude each step from being practically performed in the mind.
iii) In view of Step 2A, Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claim 1, the additional elements of “computer-implemented”, and “computer model”, merely use a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-19 further narrow the abstract ideas identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
iv) In view of Step 2B, claims 1 and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In Claim 1, the additional elements of “computer-implemented”, and “computer model”, merely use a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
As per Dependent Claim 2, “wherein the fixed finite element mesh includes a first set of material properties, and a first set of optimization parameters, wherein the adapted finite element mesh includes a second set of material properties that include a second property value that is variable from a first property value from the first set of material properties, and wherein the adapted finite element mesh includes a second set of optimization parameters includes a second optimization value that is variable from a first optimization value of the first set of optimization parameters” further limits the fixed finite element meshes identified in Claim 1 by specifying the types of properties and parameters used to initialize and create them. These limitations constitute abstract ideas based on Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As per Dependent Claim 3, “wherein the fixed finite element mesh includes a first set of material properties, and a first set of optimization parameters” further limits the fixed finite element meshes identified in Claim 1 by specifying the types of properties and parameters used to initialize and create them. These limitations constitute abstract ideas based on Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As per Dependent Claim 4 “wherein the adapted finite element mesh includes the first set of material properties and the first set of optimization parameters” further limits the fixed finite element meshes identified in Claim 3 by reference to Claim 1, specifying the types of properties and parameters used to initialize them. These limitations constitute abstract ideas based on Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As per Dependent claim 5, “iterating updates of the shape and the fiber path using the fixed finite element mesh comprises: extending a shape velocity into a larger domain of the continuous fiber composite using the fixed finite element mesh” further limits the iteration identified in Claim 1 by further specifying the method. This limitation constitutes abstract ideas based on Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As per Dependent claim 6, “extending the shape velocity into the entire domain of the continuous fiber composite using the fixed finite element mesh comprises: determining a displacement field of each element of the continuous fiber composite; determining, using the displacement field of each element, an adjoint variable to determine a gradient of each element of the continuous fiber composite; and determining the shape velocity using the adjoint variable” further limits the step(s) identified in Claim 5 by identifying calculations and judgements involved in performing the method of Claim 5. This limitation constitutes abstract ideas based on Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As per Dependent claim 7, “wherein iterating updates of the shape and the fiber path using the fixed finite element mesh comprises: a first update of the shape and the fiber path; and a second update of the shape and the fiber path” in light of the specification passage of paragraph [0158] ‘the terms "first," "second," and "third," etc. are used merely as labels, and are not intended to impose numerical requirements on their objects’ further limits the iteration identified in Claim 1. This limitation constitutes abstract ideas based on Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As per Dependent claim 8, “creating an updated version of the shape and the fiber path when iterating the updates is complete comprises: comparing the second update of the shape and the fiber path and the first update of the shape and the fiber path to determine that the fixed finite element mesh has completed updating when the second update of the shape and the fiber path and the first update of the shape and the fiber path have converged; and instantiating, using the second update of the shape and the fiber path, the updated version of the shape and the fiber path” further limits the step(s) identified in Claim 7 by identifying calculations and judgements involved in performing the method of Claim 7. This limitation constitutes abstract ideas based on Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As per Dependent Claim 9, “wherein iterating optimizations of the shape and the fiber path using the adapted finite element mesh comprises: a first optimization of the shape and the fiber path; and a second optimization of the shape and the fiber path” in light of the specification passage of paragraph [0158] ‘the terms "first," "second," and "third," etc. are used merely as labels, and are not intended to impose numerical requirements on their objects’ further limits the iteration identified in Claim 1. This limitation constitutes abstract ideas based on Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As per Dependent Claim 10, the claim element “wherein creating an optimized version of the shape and the fiber path when iterating the optimizations is complete comprises: comparing the second optimization of the shape and the fiber path and the first optimization of the shape and the fiber path to determine that the adapted finite element mesh has completed updating when the second optimization of the shape and the fiber path and the first optimization of the shape and the fiber path have converged” in light of the specification passage of paragraph [0158] ‘the terms "first," "second," and "third," etc. are used merely as labels, and are not intended to impose numerical requirements on their objects’ further limits the iterations of Claims 1 and 9 by specifying an end condition. The claim element “and instantiating, using the second optimization of the shape and the fiber path, the optimized version of the shape and the fiber path” further limits the generation step of Claim 1. These limitations constitute abstract ideas based on Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent Claim 11, “wherein iterating optimizations of the shape and the fiber path using the adapted finite element mesh comprises: extending a shape velocity into an entire domain of the continuous fiber composite using the adapted finite element mesh” further limits the iteration identified in Claim 1 by further specifying the method. This limitation constitutes abstract ideas based on Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As per Dependent Claim 12, “wherein extending the shape velocity into the entire domain using the adapted finite element mesh comprises: determining, using a state equation, a displacement field of each element of the continuous fiber composite; determining, using the displacement field of each element, an adjoint variable with an adjoint equation to determine a gradient of each element of the continuous fiber composite; and determining the shape velocity using the adjoint variable in a velocity equation” further limits the step(s) described in Claim 11 by identifying calculations and judgements involved in performing the method of Claim 11. This limitation constitutes abstract ideas based on Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As per Dependent Claim 13, “wherein generating, using the optimized version of the shape and the fiber path, a specified design of the continuous fiber composite comprises: detecting a skeleton element of the optimized version of the shape and the fiber path; and revising the detected skeleton element by aligning the detected skeleton element with adjacent skeleton elements in a normal direction” further limits the step described in Claim 1 by specifying detection, revision, and aligning steps. Each of these steps constitute abstract ideas based on Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As per Dependent Claim 14 “wherein the adapted finite element mesh includes a thickness penalty term, the thickness penalty term to implement a thickness control of the continuous fiber composite” further limits the adapted finite element mesh of Claim 1 by further specifying its constraints. This limitation constitutes abstract ideas based on Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As per Dependent Claim 16, “wherein creating, with a fixed finite element mesh, an updated version of the shape and the fiber path comprises: generating a first update of the shape and the fiber path; generating a second update of the shape and the fiber path; comparing the second update of the shape and the fiber path and the first update of the shape and the fiber path to determine that the fixed finite element mesh has completed updating when the second update of the shape and the fiber path and the first update of the shape and the fiber path have converged; and instantiating, using the second update of the shape and the fiber path, an updated version of the shape and the fiber path” in light of the specification passage of paragraph [0158] ‘the terms "first," "second," and "third," etc. are used merely as labels, and are not intended to impose numerical requirements on their objects’ further narrows the abstract ideas of Claim 15 by specifying the performance of a step two or more times and comparing the results to one another. This limitation constitutes abstract ideas based on Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As per Dependent Claim 17, “wherein generating a first update of the shape and the fiber path and generating a second update of the shape and the fiber path comprises: determining, using a state equation, a displacement field of each element of the continuous fiber composite; determining, using the displacement field of each element, an adjoint variable with an adjoint equation to determine a gradient of each element of the continuous fiber composite; determining a shape velocity using the adjoint variable in a shape velocity equation; and extending the shape velocity into an entire domain of the continuous fiber composite using the fixed finite element mesh.” in light of the specification passage of paragraph [0158] ‘the terms "first," "second," and "third," etc. are used merely as labels, and are not intended to impose numerical requirements on their objects’ further narrows the mathematical concepts used to perform the step(s) of Claim 16 by identifying which mathematical concepts to use. This limitation constitutes abstract ideas based on Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As per Dependent Claim 18, “wherein creating, with a adapted finite element mesh, an optimized version of the shape and the fiber path from the updated version of the shape and the fiber path comprises: generating a first optimization of the shape and the fiber path; generating a second optimization of the shape and the fiber path; comparing the second optimization of the shape and the fiber path and the first optimization of the shape and the fiber path to determine that the adapted finite element mesh has completed updating when the second optimization of the shape and the fiber path and the first optimization of the shape and the fiber path have converged; and instantiating, using the second optimization of the shape and the fiber path, an optimized version of the shape and the fiber path” in light of the specification passage of paragraph [0158] ‘the terms "first," "second," and "third," etc. are used merely as labels, and are not intended to impose numerical requirements on their objects’ further narrows the abstract ideas of Claim 15 by specifying the performance of a step two or more times and comparing the results to one another. This limitation constitutes abstract ideas based on Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As per Dependent Claim 19, “wherein generating a first optimization of the shape and the fiber path and generating a second optimization of the shape and the fiber path comprises: determining, using a state equation, a displacement field of each element of the continuous fiber composite; determining, using the displacement field of each element, an adjoint variable with an adjoint equation to determine a gradient of each element of the continuous fiber composite; determining a shape velocity using the adjoint variable in a velocity equation; and extending the shape velocity into an entire domain of the continuous fiber composite using the adapted finite element mesh” in light of the specification passage of paragraph [0158] ‘the terms "first," "second," and "third," etc. are used merely as labels, and are not intended to impose numerical requirements on their objects’ further narrows the mathematical concepts used to perform the step(s) of Claim 18 by identifying which mathematical concepts to use. This limitation constitutes abstract ideas based on Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
v) Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
7. Claims 1-4, 7-10, 15-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by US 20200207024 A1 (Morris, et. al.), published on July 24, 2020, hereafter Morris.
Regarding Claim 1, the reference discloses: A computer-implemented method of optimizing a computer model including a shape and a fiber path for a continuous fiber composite, the method comprising:
initializing a fixed finite element mesh; (Morris, FIG. 10. Examiner notes: the figure in the prior art illustrates the virtual model, a finite element mesh as claimed)
creating an updated version of the shape and the fiber path by iterating updates of the shape and the fiber path using the fixed finite element mesh; (Morris, FIG. 11, items 280, 310 and 320. Examiner notes the items are in a flowchart loop, which teaches iteration)
initializing an adapted finite element mesh on the updated version of the shape and the fiber path; (Morris, [0009] “generating a plurality of NURBS curves inside the virtual model that have trajectories at least partially affected by the vector field” and Morris [0055] “non-uniform rational basis spline (NURBS)”)” Examiner notes correspondence between claimed ‘updated’ and ‘affected by,’ in prior art and a correspondence between claimed ‘finite element mesh’ and ‘vector field,’ in prior art, and in light of the application drawings, e.g. Fig. 2A – Fig 2D, claimed ‘the fiber path’ corresponds to ‘a plurality of NURBS curves,’ in the prior art and Morris [0055] “non-uniform rational basis spline (NURBS),” which corresponds the path of a continuous fiber)
creating an optimized version of the shape and the fiber path by iterating optimizations of the shape and the fiber path using the adapted finite element mesh; (Morris, FIG. 11, items 280 “adjust layout and/or materials” and 320 “transform structure shape”; Examiner notes: item 280 “adjust layout and/or materials” and “transform structure shape” within a flowchart loop in the prior art corresponds to claimed “iterating optimizations of the shape and the fiber path”) and
generating, using the optimized version of the shape and the fiber path, a specified design of the continuous fiber composite. (Morris, [0010] “selectively sequencing the plurality of NURBS curves to generate a tool path based on the analysis, and causing the additive manufacturing machine to discharge a path of composite material along the tool path.” Examiner notes: claimed ‘generating instructions for a manufacturing machine’ to build the part corresponds with ‘a specified design’ in the prior art and that, Morris [0055] “non-uniform rational basis spline (NURBS),” which corresponds to the claimed path of a continuous fiber.)
Regarding Claim 2, the reference discloses: The method of claim 1,
wherein the fixed finite element mesh includes a first set of material properties, and a first set of optimization parameters, (Morris, Fig. 2, items 200 and 270 “layout & materials acceptable?” and [0071] “iteration of Steps 250-280” Examiner notes: the presence of an evaluation step within an iterative loop teaches optimization parameters)
wherein the adapted finite element mesh includes a second set of material properties that include a second property value that is variable from a first property value from the first set of material properties, (Morris, Fig. 2, item 280, and [0061] “This adjustment may include changing the selected materials and/or the layout (e.g., density, trajectory, relative positions, etc.) of reinforcements (Step 280)” Examiner notes: claimed “is variable” does not require variation, and “may include changing the selected materials” from the prior art constitutes variable material properties since a change in material necessarily changes the material properties.) and
wherein the adapted finite element mesh includes a second set of optimization parameters [that/which included for purposes of compact prosecution; see claim objections] includes a second optimization value that is variable from a first optimization value of the first set of optimization parameters. (Morris, FIG. 11, items 310 and 320 “structure shape and loading conditions” Examiner notes: “structure shape and loading conditions” within a loop recited in the prior art qualify as two optimization values, giving “a second optimization value” as claimed.)
Regarding Claim 3, the reference discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the fixed finite element mesh includes a first set of material properties and a first set of optimization parameters. (Morris, Fig. 2, items 200 and 270 “layout & materials acceptable?” and [0071] “iteration of Steps 250-280” Examiner notes: the presence of an evaluation step within an iterative loop teaches optimization parameters)
Regarding Claim 4, the reference discloses: The method of claim 3, wherein the adapted finite element mesh includes the first set of material properties and the first set of optimization parameters. (Morris, Fig. 2, item 280, and [0061] “This adjustment may include changing the selected materials and/or the layout (e.g., density, trajectory, relative positions, etc.) of reinforcements (Step 280)” Examiner notes: in view of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the 1st and 2nd set of material properties can be the same, and “may include changing the selected materials” from the prior art constitutes variable material properties since a change in material necessarily changes the material properties.)
Regarding Claim 7, the reference discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein iterating updates of the shape and the fiber path using the fixed finite element mesh comprises: a first update of the shape and the fiber path; and a second update of the shape and the fiber path. (Morris, [0009] “generating a plurality of NURBS curves inside the virtual model that have trajectories at least partially affected by the vector field” and Morris [0055], teaches “non-uniform rational basis spline (NURBS)”)” Examiner notes correspondence between claimed ‘updated’ and ‘affected by,’ in prior art and a correspondence between claimed ‘finite element mesh’ and ‘vector field,’ in prior art, and in light of the application drawings, e.g. Fig. 2A – Fig 2D, claimed ‘the fiber path’ corresponds to ‘a plurality of NURBS curves,’ in the prior art and Morris [0055], teaches “non-uniform rational basis spline (NURBS),” which corresponds the path of a continuous fiber)
Regarding Claim 8, the reference discloses: The method of claim 7, wherein creating an updated version of the shape and the fiber path when iterating the updates is complete comprises: comparing the second update of the shape and the fiber path and the first update of the shape and the fiber path to determine that the fixed finite element mesh has completed updating when the second update of the shape and the fiber path and the first update of the shape and the fiber path have converged; and instantiating, using the second update of the shape and the fiber path, the updated version of the shape and the fiber path. (Morris. [0061] “Based on the analysis and/or display of the associated results, the materials selected for and the layout of reinforcements within structure 12 may be considered acceptable or in need of adjustment (Step 270). This consideration may be performed automatically by processor 36, for example by comparing calculated performance results with specified performance criteria, or manually via user observation of the displayed information. When the material selection and the reinforcement layout do not together achieve the specified performance criteria, an adjustment may be made. This adjustment may include changing the selected materials and/or the layout (e.g., density, trajectory, relative positions, etc.) of reinforcements (Step 280).”)
Regarding Claim 9, the reference discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein iterating optimizations of the shape and the fiber path using the adapted finite element mesh comprises: a first optimization of the shape and the fiber path; and a second optimization of the shape and the fiber path. (Morris. [0061] “Based on the analysis and/or display of the associated results, the materials selected for and the layout of reinforcements within structure 12 may be considered acceptable or in need of adjustment (Step 270). This consideration may be performed automatically by processor 36, for example by comparing calculated performance results with specified performance criteria, or manually via user observation of the displayed information. When the material selection and the reinforcement layout do not together achieve the specified performance criteria, an adjustment may be made. This adjustment may include changing the selected materials and/or the layout (e.g., density, trajectory, relative positions, etc.) of reinforcements (Step 280).”)
Regarding Claim 10, the reference discloses: The method of claim 9, wherein creating an optimized version of the shape and the fiber path when iterating the optimizations is complete comprises: comparing the second optimization of the shape and the fiber path and the first optimization of the shape and the fiber path to determine that the adapted finite element mesh has completed updating when the second optimization of the shape and the fiber path and the first optimization of the shape and the fiber path have converged; and instantiating, using the second optimization of the shape and the fiber path, the optimized version of the shape and the fiber path. (Morris. [0061] “Based on the analysis and/or display of the associated results, the materials selected for and the layout of reinforcements within structure 12 may be considered acceptable or in need of adjustment (Step 270). This consideration may be performed automatically by processor 36, for example by comparing calculated performance results with specified performance criteria, or manually via user observation of the displayed information. When the material selection and the reinforcement layout do not together achieve the specified performance criteria, an adjustment may be made. This adjustment may include changing the selected materials and/or the layout (e.g., density, trajectory, relative positions, etc.) of reinforcements (Step 280).”)
Regarding Claim 15, the reference discloses: A method of optimizing a shape and a fiber path for a continuous fiber composite, the method comprising: creating, using a fixed finite element mesh, an updated version of the shape and the fiber path; (Morris, FIG. 10. Examiner notes: the figure in the prior art illustrates the virtual model, a finite element mesh as claimed) creating, using a adapted finite element mesh, an optimized version of the shape and the fiber path from the updated version of the shape and the fiber path; (Morris, FIG. 11, items 280, 310 and 320. Examiner notes the items are in a flowchart loop, which teaches iteration) and generating, using the optimized version of the shape and the fiber path, a specified design of the continuous fiber composite. (Morris, [0010], “selectively sequencing the plurality of NURBS curves to generate a tool path based on the analysis, and causing the additive manufacturing machine to discharge a path of composite material along the tool path.” Examiner notes: claimed ‘generating instructions for a manufacturing machine’ to build the part corresponds with ‘a specified design’ in the prior art and that, Morris [0055], “non-uniform rational basis spline (NURBS),” which corresponds to the claimed path of a continuous fiber.)
Regarding Claim 16, the reference discloses: The method of claim 15, wherein creating, with a fixed finite element mesh, an updated version of the shape and the fiber path comprises: generating a first update of the shape and the fiber path; generating a second update of the shape and the fiber path; (Morris, [0009], “generating a plurality of NURBS curves inside the virtual model that have trajectories at least partially affected by the vector field” and Morris [0055], “non-uniform rational basis spline (NURBS)”)” Examiner notes correspondence between claimed ‘updated’ and ‘affected by,’ in prior art and a correspondence between claimed ‘finite element mesh’ and ‘vector field,’ in prior art, and in light of the application drawings, e.g. Fig. 2A – Fig 2D, claimed ‘the fiber path’ corresponds to ‘a plurality of NURBS curves,’ in the prior art and Morris [0055], “non-uniform rational basis spline (NURBS),” which corresponds the path of a continuous fiber) comparing the second update of the shape and the fiber path and the first update of the shape and the fiber path to determine that the fixed finite element mesh has completed updating when the second update of the shape and the fiber path and the first update of the shape and the fiber path have converged; (Morris. [0061] “Based on the analysis and/or display of the associated results, the materials selected for and the layout of reinforcements within structure 12 may be considered acceptable or in need of adjustment (Step 270). This consideration may be performed automatically by processor 36, for example by comparing calculated performance results with specified performance criteria, or manually via user observation of the displayed information. When the material selection and the reinforcement layout do not together achieve the specified performance criteria, an adjustment may be made. This adjustment may include changing the selected materials and/or the layout (e.g., density, trajectory, relative positions, etc.) of reinforcements (Step 280).”) and instantiating, using the second update of the shape and the fiber path, an updated version of the shape and the fiber path. (Morris. [0061] “Based on the analysis and/or display of the associated results, the materials selected for and the layout of reinforcements within structure 12 may be considered acceptable or in need of adjustment (Step 270). This consideration may be performed automatically by processor 36, for example by comparing calculated performance results with specified performance criteria, or manually via user observation of the displayed information. When the material selection and the reinforcement layout do not together achieve the specified performance criteria, an adjustment may be made. This adjustment may include changing the selected materials and/or the layout (e.g., density, trajectory, relative positions, etc.) of reinforcements (Step 280).”)
Regarding Claim 18, the reference discloses: The method of claim 15, wherein creating, with a adapted finite element mesh, an optimized version of the shape and the fiber path from the updated version of the shape and the fiber path comprises: generating a first optimization of the shape and the fiber path; generating a second optimization of the shape and the fiber path; comparing the second optimization of the shape and the fiber path and the first optimization of the shape and the fiber path to determine that the adapted finite element mesh has completed updating when the second optimization of the shape and the fiber path and the first optimization of the shape and the fiber path have converged; and instantiating, using the second optimization of the shape and the fiber path, an optimized version of the shape and the fiber path. (Morris. [0061] “Based on the analysis and/or display of the associated results, the materials selected for and the layout of reinforcements within structure 12 may be considered acceptable or in need of adjustment (Step 270). This consideration may be performed automatically by processor 36, for example by comparing calculated performance results with specified performance criteria, or manually via user observation of the displayed information. When the material selection and the reinforcement layout do not together achieve the specified performance criteria, an adjustment may be made. This adjustment may include changing the selected materials and/or the layout (e.g., density, trajectory, relative positions, etc.) of reinforcements (Step 280).”)
Regarding Claim 20, the reference discloses: An apparatus or article of manufacture optimized using the method of claim 15. (See rejection for claim 15)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
8. Claims 5-6, 11-12, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris in view of Zhang, S., and A. D. Belegundu. "A systematic approach for generating velocity fields in shape optimization." Structural optimization 5.1 (1992): 84-94, hereafter Zhang.
Regarding Claim 5, the reference discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein iterating updates of the shape and the fiber path using the fixed finite element mesh comprises:
Morris does not explicitly recite extending a shape velocity into a larger domain of the continuous fiber composite using the fixed finite element mesh.
However, Zhang discloses extending a shape velocity into a larger domain of the continuous fiber composite using the fixed finite element mesh. (Zhang. Introduction, 2nd paragraph, page 84, right column “An essential step in shape optimization is to parametrize the shape change which involves the generation of velocity fields, or basis shapes. The velocity field establishes a relationship between changes in design variables and finite element nodal locations.”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the velocity field, or basis shape of Zhang, which could also be called a shape velocity, with the grid points of the finite element mesh illustrated in the system of Morris as that would represent an “essential step in shape optimization.” (Zhang. Introduction, 2nd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 6, the reference discloses: The method of claim 5, wherein extending the shape velocity into the entire domain of the continuous fiber composite using the fixed finite element mesh comprises:
Morris does not explicitly recite determining a displacement field of each element of the continuous fiber composite;
determining, using the displacement field of each element, an adjoint variable to determine a gradient of each element of the continuous fiber composite; and
determining the shape velocity using the adjoint variable.
However, Zhang discloses determining a displacement field of each element of the continuous fiber composite; (Zhang, section 3.5, first paragraph, page 90, left column “velocity fields are normalized”. See also equation 4)
determining, using the displacement field of each element, an adjoint variable to determine a gradient of each element of the continuous fiber composite; and (Zhang, section 3.5, first paragraph, page 90, left column “velocity fields are normalized”. See also equation 4. See also Figure 6, gradient call)
determining the shape velocity using the adjoint variable. (Figure 6)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the velocity field, or basis shape of Zhang, which could also be called a shape velocity, with the grid points of the finite element mesh illustrated in the system of Morris as that would represent an “essential step in shape optimization.” (Zhang. Introduction, 2nd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 11, the reference discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein iterating optimizations of the shape and the fiber path using the adapted finite element mesh comprises: extending a shape velocity into an entire domain of the continuous fiber composite using the adapted finite element mesh. (See rejection for claim 5)
Regarding Claim 12, the reference discloses: The method of claim 11, wherein extending the shape velocity into the entire domain using the adapted finite element mesh comprises: determining, using a state equation, a displacement field of each element of the continuous fiber composite; determining, using the displacement field of each element, an adjoint variable with an adjoint equation to determine a gradient of each element of the continuous fiber composite; and determining the shape velocity using the adjoint variable in a velocity equation. (See rejection for claim 6)
Regarding Claim 17, the reference discloses: The method of claim 16, wherein generating a first update of the shape and the fiber path and generating a second update of the shape and the fiber path comprises: determining, using a state equation, a displacement field of each element of the continuous fiber composite; (Morris. “[0059] As shown in FIG. 7, the analysis of each reinforcement may be relatively simple. For example, each continuous reinforcement or tow of reinforcements may be considered a composite beam. Based on the constraints and loads of the composite beam, processor 36 may be configured to apply basic engineering equations of mechanics and equilibrium to determine principle stresses, principle strains, and principle directions (e.g., axial forces, shear forces, and bending moments at locations along the lengths of the reinforcements). As shown in FIG. 7, these forces may then be used to determine a selected performance (e.g., strain, stress, etc.) of the reinforcement(s), to determine an aggregated performance of all of the reinforcements, and to display a global performance of structure 12 (Step 260).”) determining, using the displacement field of each element, an adjoint variable with an adjoint equation to determine a gradient of each element of the continuous fiber composite; determining a shape velocity using the adjoint variable in a shape velocity equation; (Morris. [0068] “In the example of FIG. 10B, each element E has reinforcements R located at its borders and passing through its center. Again, this arrangement will make the properties of the element E anisotropic. That is, the boarders will be stiff, as well as other locations throughout the center where additional reinforcements R are located. The areas between reinforcements R will have a lower stiffness, thereby creating multiple areas of graduated stiffness within each element E.”)
Morris does not explicitly recite extending the shape velocity into an entire domain of the continuous fiber composite using the fixed finite element mesh.
However, Zhang discloses extending the shape velocity into an entire domain of the continuous fiber composite using the fixed finite element mesh. (Zhang. Introduction, 2nd paragraph, page 84, right column “An essential step in shape optimization is to parametrize the shape change which involves the generation of velocity fields, or basis shapes. The velocity field establishes a relationship between changes in design variables and finite element nodal locations.”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the velocity field, or basis shape of Zhang, which could also be called a shape velocity, with the grid points of the finite element mesh illustrated in the system of Morris as that would represent an “essential step in shape optimization.” (Zhang. Introduction, 2nd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 19, the reference discloses: The method of claim 18, wherein generating a first optimization of the shape and the fiber path and generating a second optimization of the shape and the fiber path comprises: determining, using a state equation, a displacement field of each element of the continuous fiber composite; determining, using the displacement field of each element, an adjoint variable with an adjoint equation to determine a gradient of each element of the continuous fiber composite; determining a shape velocity using the adjoint variable in a velocity equation; and extending the shape velocity into an entire domain of the continuous fiber composite using the adapted finite element mesh. (See rejection for claim 17)
9. Claims 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris in view of Huang, Xiang, et al. "Skeleton-based tracing of curved fibers from 3D X-ray microtomographic imaging." Results in physics 6 (2016): 170-177, hereafter Huang.
Regarding Claim 13, the reference discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein generating, using the optimized version of the shape and the fiber path, a specified design of the continuous fiber composite comprises:
Morris does not explicitly recite detecting a skeleton element of the optimized version of the shape and the fiber path; and revising the detected skeleton element by aligning the detected skeleton element with adjacent skeleton elements in a normal direction.
However, Huang recites detecting a skeleton element of the optimized version of the shape and the fiber path; and revising the detected skeleton element by aligning the detected skeleton element with adjacent skeleton elements in a normal direction. (Huang. Page 171, bottom left, skeleton network, and bottom right, “Consequently, short B–L paths with length equal to the mean fiber radius were classified as spurs and removed.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the skeleton classification of Huang with the finite element modeling of Morris to “obtain a topologically identical representation of the fiber structure.” (Huang. Page 171, left middle)
10. Claims 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris in view of Zhao, Donghua, and Weizhong Guo. "Shape and performance controlled advanced design for additive manufacturing: a review of slicing and path planning." Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering 142.1 (2020): 010801.
Regarding Claim 14, the reference discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the adapted finite element mesh
Morris does not explicitly recite includes a thickness penalty term, the thickness penalty term to implement a thickness control of the continuous fiber composite.
Zhao recites includes a thickness penalty term, the thickness penalty term to implement a thickness control of the continuous fiber composite. (Zhao, Page 2, right column, “When using uniform and unidirectional slicing, one could reduce the slicing layer thickness to improve geometry accuracy, leading to more layers and build time.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a thickness limit as per Zhao with the finite element mesh aspect of Morris in order to “improve geometry accuracy, leading to more layers and build time.” (Zhao, Page 2, right column)
Conclusion
11. All Claims are rejected.
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
i) U.S. Patent Publication No. 20200159186
ii) U.S. Patent Publication No. 20200156323
iii) Papapetrou, Vasileios S., Chitrang Patel, and Ali Y. Tamijani. "Stiffness-based optimization framework for the topology and fiber paths of continuous fiber composites." Composites Part B: Engineering 183 (2020): 107681.
iv) Shafighfard, Torkan, Thomas A. Cender, and Eralp Demir. "Additive manufacturing of compliance optimized variable stiffness composites through short fiber alignment along curvilinear paths." Additive Manufacturing 37 (2021): 101728.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saif A. Alhija whose telephone number is (571) 272-8635. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10:00-6:00.
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, Renee Chavez, can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Informal or draft communication, please label PROPOSED or DRAFT, can be additionally sent to the Examiners fax phone number, (571) 273-8635.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
SAA
/SAIF A ALHIJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights