DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Note
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18225707, filed on 7/25/23.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Examiner suggests removing “The invention relates to”.
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 abstract ideas without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes and/or mathematical concepts without significantly more.
Step 1, Statutory Category
Yes: Claims 1-8 are directed to a process. Claims 9-16 are directed to a machine. Claims 17-20 are directed to a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong I, Judicial Exception:
The Examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute mental process, as the claims cover performance of the human mind, given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
A method for identifying contact features of Boundary Representation (B-Rep)-based Computer Aided Design (CAD) models, the method comprising:
for each body of a plurality of bodies, determining, by a feature identification device, a body type associated with the body from a plurality of body types based on information extracted from a boundary representation of the body,
wherein each of the plurality of bodies is a B-Rep-based CAD model, and
wherein each of the plurality of body types is one of an invalid body type and a valid body type;
identifying, by the feature identification device, one or more associated body pairs from a set of valid bodies based on a proximity between each two of the set of valid bodies and a predefined threshold proximity,
wherein the body type of each of the set of valid bodies is the valid body type;
for each of the one or more associated body pairs, identifying, by the feature identification device, one or more face pairs for each body of the one or more associated body pairs based on a single-body criteria, and
for each pair of the one or more associated body pairs based on a multi-body criteria; and
identifying, by the feature identification device, a set of contact features comprising contact parameters from each of the one or more face pairs based on a plurality of user control parameters.
The bolded limitations are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, observations, and evaluations. A person can determine the body types of B-Rep CAD models from a plurality of different body types. They can identify pairs of valid bodies based on proximity. They can identify face pairs from body pairs. They can identify contact features of the face pairs.
Claim 1 recites the additional claim limitations outside the abstract ideas which only present general field of use and mere instructions to apply an exception.
A method for identifying contact features of Boundary Representation (B-Rep)-based Computer Aided Design (CAD) models, the method comprising: (general field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
determining, by a feature identification device, a body type (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
wherein each of the plurality of bodies is a B-Rep-based CAD model (general field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
wherein each of the plurality of body types is one of an invalid body type and a valid body type; (general field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
identifying, by the feature identification device, one or more associated body pairs (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
wherein the body type of each of the set of valid bodies is the valid body type; (general field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
identifying, by the feature identification device, one or more face pairs (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
identifying, by the feature identification device, a set of contact features (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations and elements of claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Reciting “by a feature identification device” merely evokes a generic computing component with which to apply the mental process, which is well understood, routine, and conventional activity in the art.
Reciting the general field of use limitations “wherein each of the plurality of bodies is a B-Rep-based CAD model”, “wherein each of the plurality of body types is one of an invalid body type and a valid body type”, and “wherein the body type of each of the set of valid bodies is the valid body type”, amounts to sorting CAD model bodies/objects, which is well understood, routine, and conventional activity in the art.
Considering the claim limitations in combination and the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion, and claim 1 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites: The method of claim 1, wherein the invalid body type is one of a non-manifold body type, a multi-part body type, a surface body type, or a wire body type. The additional limitation is considered to be generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Specifically, the limitation is linking “identifying … associated body pairs” (judicial exception) to exclude specific types of bodies (particular technological environment).
CAD object types of ‘non-manifold,’ multi-part,’ ‘surface,’ and ‘wire’ are well understood, routine, and conventional in the art.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 2 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites: The method of claim 1 wherein identifying the one or more associated body pairs comprises: receiving the set of valid bodies; This limitation is considered to constitute insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
for each two bodies of the set of valid bodies, calculating the proximity between boundary envelopes of the two bodies; This limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Calculating a proximity between the boundary of two bodies is being considered a mental observation.
one of: establishing the two bodies as an associated body pair when the proximity is within the predefined threshold proximity; This limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Generally establishing an association is a mental process.
establishing the two bodies as a non-contacting body pair when the proximity is not within the predefined threshold proximity. This limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Generally establishing an association is a mental process.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 2 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites: The method of claim 1, wherein identifying one or more face pairs based on the single-body criteria comprises,
for each body of each of the one or more associated body pairs, determining if the proximity between two faces of the body is within the predefined threshold proximity. This limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Determining if proximity is within a threshold is considered a mental observation.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 2 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites: The method of claim 1, wherein identifying one or more face pairs based on the multi-body criteria comprises,
for each body pair of the one or more associated body pairs, determining if the proximity between a face of each of the body pair is within the predefined threshold proximity. This limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Determining if proximity is within a threshold is considered a mental observation.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 2 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites: The method of claim 1, wherein the contact parameters comprise one or more contact types, one or more contact entities, and one or more contact regions. The limitation is considered to be generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 2 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites: The method of claim 6, wherein the one or more contact types comprise at least one of a face-face contact type, a face-vertex contact type, a face-edge contact type, an edge-edge contact type, an edge-vertex contact type, and a vertex-vertex contact type. The limitation is considered to be generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
wherein the one or more contact regions comprise a two-dimensional (2D) contact region, a one-dimensional (1 D) contact region, and a zero-dimensional (OD) contact region. The limitation is considered to be generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 2 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites: The method of claim 6, further comprising validating each of the one or more contact types based on the corresponding one or more contact regions, wherein: the face-face contact type corresponds to the 2D contact region; each of the face-edge contact type and the edge-edge contact type corresponds to the 1 D contact region; and each of the face-vertex contact type, the edge-vertex contact type, and the vertex-vertex contact type corresponds to the OD contact region. These limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A person can perform “validating … contact types” as an observation mental process. Furthermore, observation that contacting faces touch in 2 dimensions, a contacting edge in 1 dimension, and a contacting vertex in 0 dimensions is mere human observation.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 2 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 9 contains sufficiently similar limitations to claim 1, with the additional limitations: a processor; and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the memory stores processor-executable instructions, which, on execution, cause the processor to… These limitations are directed to generic computing components and mere instructions to apply an exception. These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claims 9 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 17 contains sufficiently similar limitations to claim 1, with the additional limitations: “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions”, “the computer executable instructions configured to”. These limitations are directed to generic computing components and mere instructions to apply an exception. These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claims 17 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claims 10-16 contain sufficiently similar limitations to claims 2-8 respectively and are rejected under U.S.C 101 for the same reasons.
Claims 18-20 contain sufficiently similar limitations to claims 3-5 respectively and are rejected under U.S.C 101 for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Shimizu (Pub. US 20040044504 A1, 2004) in view of Kanthasamy et al. (US Patent 10,078,912, 2018) and further in view of Yamaguchi et al (NPL, 1997).
Regarding Claim 1, Shimizu teaches:
A method for identifying contact features of Boundary Representation (B-Rep)- based Computer Aided Design (CAD) models (Shimizu [0086], “Analytical condition information includes … contact information about a parts boundary”)
the method comprising: for each body of a plurality of bodies, determining, by a feature identification device, a body type associated with the body from a plurality of body types based on information extracted from a boundary representation of the body, (Shimizu [0061], “The weight refers to a value specifying the level of easily changing or deleting the shape of a weight part when the weighted part is moved or changed.”)
and wherein each of the plurality of body types is one of an invalid body type and a valid body type; (Shimizu [0068], “Based on the above mentioned determination, parts can be sequentially deleted or shape-changed from those that can be easily deleted or shape-changed.”)
identifying, by the feature identification device, one or more associated body pairs from a set of valid bodies based on a proximity between each two of the set of valid bodies and a predefined threshold proximity, (Shimizu [0046], “Part1 and Part12 contact each other as specified as a contact pair”)
wherein the body type of each of the set of valid bodies is the valid body type; (Shimizu [0061], “The weight refers to a value specifying the level of easily changing or deleting the shape of a weight part when the weighted part is moved or changed.”)
and identifying, by the feature identification device, a set of contact features comprising contact parameters (Shimizu [0086], “Analytical condition information includes … contact information about a parts boundary”)
based on a plurality of user control parameters. (Shimizu [0061], “The weight refers to a value specifying the level of easily changing or deleting the shape of a weight part when the weighted part is moved or changed.”)
Of the limitations not taught by Shimizu, Kanthasamy teaches:
for each of the one or more associated body pairs, identifying, by the feature identification device, one or more face pairs for each body of the one or more associated body pairs based on a single-body criteria, (Kanthasamy col. 8 ln 5-6, “contact region pair identification system”) (Kanthasamy Fig. 3A)
and for each pair of the one or more associated body pairs based on a multi-body criteria; (Kanthasamy, Fig 4A – 4B)
from each of the one or more face pairs (Kanthasamy Fig. 6)
Of the limitations not taught by Shimizu in view of Kanthasamy, Yamaguchi teaches:
wherein each of the plurality of bodies is a B-Rep-based CAD model, (Yamaguchi pg. 104, “Most current geometric modeling systems using boundary representations are based on manifold topology as their internal representations.”)
Shimizu, Kanthasamy, and Yamaguchi are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: Computer-aided design and finite element methods (FEM). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shimizu with the teachings of Kanthasamy further in view of Yamaguchi. The motivation/suggestion would be that Shimizu is directed toward FEM analysis of contact objects in CAD models (Shimizu [0010]-[0011], “When a mesh is generated, a model is simplified corresponding to a fluid structure, electromagnetic field analysis, etc … However a long time is required to delete and correct the basic geometric data (parts shape data) Furthermore, a different piece of mesh generation software is required for each analysis, and the analyzer takes a long time to learn each pieces of software. / The present invention aims at solving the above mentioned problems and providing an analysis support apparatus when an analysis is performed using geometric data.”), while Kanthasamy recites the importance of predicting behaviors of FEM models over time (Kanthasamy col. 1 ln. 11, “Predicting behavior or mechanical objects is important in order to assess the operability of the mechanical objects over time…”). Furthermore, Shimizu is directed toward modeling object contacts, and Kanthasamy is directed toward detecting object contacts (Kanthasamy col. 1 ln. 54-55, “The method includes detecting contact region within a simulated model, classifying the contact region in the model.”). Yamaguchi (1997) teaches boundary representation objects and classification of non-manifold geometry as well known in the art at the time of Shimizu (2003) and Kanthasamy (2018).
Claims 9 and 17 recite sufficiently similar limitations to claim 1 and are rejected under U.S.C. 103 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1 taught by Shimizu in view of Kanthasamy and further in view of Yamaguchi, Shimizu teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the invalid body type is one of a non-manifold body type, a multi-part body type, a surface body type, or a wire body type. (Shimizu [0068], “Based on the above mentioned determination, parts can be sequentially deleted or shape-changed from those that can be easily deleted or shape-changed.”) It is inherent from Shimizu that certain geometries are not compatible with analysis, or otherwise treated differently based on analysis, which is why they are to be excluded or changed. These geometries appear in Yamaguchi, which teaches the classifications and identifications of compatible and non-compatible geometries (Yamaguchi pg. 110-111).
Shimizu, Kanthasamy, and Yamaguchi are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: Computer-aided design and finite element methods (FEM). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shimizu with the teachings of Kanthasamy further in view of Yamaguchi. The motivation/suggestion would be that Shimizu is directed toward FEM analysis of contact objects in CAD models (Shimizu [0010]-[0011], “When a mesh is generated, a model is simplified corresponding to a fluid structure, electromagnetic field analysis, etc … However a long time is required to delete and correct the basic geometric data (parts shape data) Furthermore, a different piece of mesh generation software is required for each analysis, and the analyzer takes a long time to learn each pieces of software. / The present invention aims at solving the above mentioned problems and providing an analysis support apparatus when an analysis is performed using geometric data.”), while Kanthasamy recites the importance of predicting behaviors of FEM models over time (Kanthasamy col. 1 ln. 11, “Predicting behavior or mechanical objects is important in order to assess the operability of the mechanical objects over time…”). Furthermore, Shimizu is directed toward modeling object contacts, and Kanthasamy is directed toward detecting object contacts (Kanthasamy col. 1 ln. 54-55, “The method includes detecting contact region within a simulated model, classifying the contact region in the model.”). Yamaguchi (1997) teaches boundary representation objects and classification of non-manifold geometry as well known in the art at the time of Shimizu (2003) and Kanthasamy (2018).
Claim 10 recites sufficiently similar limitations to claim 2 and is rejected under U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 3, in addition to the limitations of claim 1 taught by Shimizu in view of Kanthasamy and further in view of Yamaguchi, Shimizu teaches:
wherein identifying the one or more associated body pairs comprises: receiving the set of valid bodies; (Shimizu [0068], “Based on the above mentioned determination, parts can be sequentially deleted or shape-changed from those that can be easily deleted or shape-changed.”)
and, one of: establishing the two bodies as an associated body pair when the proximity is within the predefined threshold proximity; (Shimizu [0046], “Part1 and Part12 contact each other as specified as a contact pair”)
or establishing the two bodies as a non-contacting body pair when the proximity is not within the predefined threshold proximity. (Shimizu [0046], “Part1 and Part12 contact each other as specified as a contact pair”) non-contact designation is being interpreted as not being counted as a contact pair.
Of the limitations not taught by Shimizu, Kanthasamy teaches:
for each two bodies of the set of valid bodies, calculating the proximity between boundary envelopes of the two bodies; (Kanthasamy col. 9 ln. 56-64, “Step 202 may generally include … using the data structure and triangle and mesh information”) Utilizing a proximity calculation between vertices is inherent to detecting face overlaps.
Shimizu, Kanthasamy, and Yamaguchi are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: Computer-aided design and finite element methods (FEM). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shimizu with the teachings of Kanthasamy further in view of Yamaguchi. The motivation/suggestion would be that Shimizu is directed toward FEM analysis of contact objects in CAD models (Shimizu [0010]-[0011], “When a mesh is generated, a model is simplified corresponding to a fluid structure, electromagnetic field analysis, etc … However a long time is required to delete and correct the basic geometric data (parts shape data) Furthermore, a different piece of mesh generation software is required for each analysis, and the analyzer takes a long time to learn each pieces of software. / The present invention aims at solving the above mentioned problems and providing an analysis support apparatus when an analysis is performed using geometric data.”), while Kanthasamy recites the importance of predicting behaviors of FEM models over time (Kanthasamy col. 1 ln. 11, “Predicting behavior or mechanical objects is important in order to assess the operability of the mechanical objects over time…”). Furthermore, Shimizu is directed toward modeling object contacts, and Kanthasamy is directed toward detecting object contacts (Kanthasamy col. 1 ln. 54-55, “The method includes detecting contact region within a simulated model, classifying the contact region in the model.”). Yamaguchi (1997) teaches boundary representation objects and classification of non-manifold geometry as well known in the art at the time of Shimizu (2003) and Kanthasamy (2018).
Claims 11 and 18 recite sufficiently similar limitations to claim 3 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 4, in addition to the limitations of claim 1 taught by Shimizu in view of Kanthasamy and further in view of Yamaguchi, Shimizu teaches:
wherein identifying one or more face pairs based on the single-body criteria comprises, for each body of each of the one or more associated body pairs, (Shimizu [0046], “Part1 and Part12 contact each other as specified as a contact pair”) non-contact designation is being interpreted as not being counted as a contact pair.
Of the limitations not taught by Shimizu, Kanthasamy teaches:
determining if the proximity between two faces of the body is within the predefined threshold proximity. (Kanthasamy col. 9 ln. 56-64, “Step 202 may generally include … using the data structure and triangle and mesh information”) Utilizing a proximity calculation between vertices (of faces) is inherent to detecting face overlaps.
Shimizu, Kanthasamy, and Yamaguchi are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: Computer-aided design and finite element methods (FEM). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shimizu with the teachings of Kanthasamy further in view of Yamaguchi. The motivation/suggestion would be that Shimizu is directed toward FEM analysis of contact objects in CAD models (Shimizu [0010]-[0011], “When a mesh is generated, a model is simplified corresponding to a fluid structure, electromagnetic field analysis, etc … However a long time is required to delete and correct the basic geometric data (parts shape data) Furthermore, a different piece of mesh generation software is required for each analysis, and the analyzer takes a long time to learn each pieces of software. / The present invention aims at solving the above mentioned problems and providing an analysis support apparatus when an analysis is performed using geometric data.”), while Kanthasamy recites the importance of predicting behaviors of FEM models over time (Kanthasamy col. 1 ln. 11, “Predicting behavior or mechanical objects is important in order to assess the operability of the mechanical objects over time…”). Furthermore, Shimizu is directed toward modeling object contacts, and Kanthasamy is directed toward detecting object contacts (Kanthasamy col. 1 ln. 54-55, “The method includes detecting contact region within a simulated model, classifying the contact region in the model.”). Yamaguchi (1997) teaches boundary representation objects and classification of non-manifold geometry as well known in the art at the time of Shimizu (2003) and Kanthasamy (2018).
Claim 12 recites limitations sufficiently similar to claim 4 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 5, in addition to the limitations of claim 1 taught by Shimizu in view of Kanthasamy and further in view of Yamaguchi, Kanthasamy teaches the following limitations:
wherein identifying one or more face pairs based on the multi-body criteria comprises, for each body pair of the one or more associated body pairs, (Kanthasamy col. 10 ln. 58-59, “the model includes two separate portions 400, 402”) Kanthasamy teaches identifying contact between two bodies by first converting the data to a single vertex data structure.
determining if the proximity between a face of each of the body pair is within the predefined threshold proximity. (Kanthasamy col. 9 ln. 56-64, “Step 202 may generally include … using the data structure and triangle and mesh information”) Utilizing a proximity calculation between vertices is inherent to detecting face overlaps.
Shimizu, Kanthasamy, and Yamaguchi are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: Computer-aided design and finite element methods (FEM). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shimizu with the teachings of Kanthasamy further in view of Yamaguchi. The motivation/suggestion would be that Shimizu is directed toward FEM analysis of contact objects in CAD models (Shimizu [0010]-[0011], “When a mesh is generated, a model is simplified corresponding to a fluid structure, electromagnetic field analysis, etc … However a long time is required to delete and correct the basic geometric data (parts shape data) Furthermore, a different piece of mesh generation software is required for each analysis, and the analyzer takes a long time to learn each pieces of software. / The present invention aims at solving the above mentioned problems and providing an analysis support apparatus when an analysis is performed using geometric data.”), while Kanthasamy recites the importance of predicting behaviors of FEM models over time (Kanthasamy col. 1 ln. 11, “Predicting behavior or mechanical objects is important in order to assess the operability of the mechanical objects over time…”). Furthermore, Shimizu is directed toward modeling object contacts, and Kanthasamy is directed toward detecting object contacts (Kanthasamy col. 1 ln. 54-55, “The method includes detecting contact region within a simulated model, classifying the contact region in the model.”). Yamaguchi (1997) teaches boundary representation objects and classification of non-manifold geometry as well known in the art at the time of Shimizu (2003) and Kanthasamy (2018).
Claims 13 and 20 recite sufficiently similar limitations to claim 5 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the same reasons.
Claims 6-8 & 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Shimizu (Pub. US 20040044504 A1, 2004) in view of Kanthasamy et al. (US Patent 10,078,912, 2018) and Yamaguchi et al (NPL, 1997), and further in view of Goyal et al. (US Patent 5625575, 1997)
Regarding Claim 6, in addition to the limitations of claim 1 taught by Shimizu in view of Kanthasamy and further in view of Yamaguchi, Shimizu teaches:
one or more contact entities, (Shimizu [0046], “Part1 and Part12 contact each other as specified as a contact pair”)
The following limitations not taught by Shimizu are taught by Goyal:
wherein the contact parameters comprise one or more contact types, (Goyal col. 6 ln. 66-1, “Convex polyhedra can contact each other in any of six ways: face-face, face-edge, face-vertex, edge-edge, edge-vertex, vertex-vertex.”)
and one or more contact regions. (Goyal Fig. 3-4C)
Shimizu, Kanthasamy, Yamaguchi, and Goyal are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: Computer-aided design and finite element methods (FEM). Additionally Yamaguchi and Goyal are both in the field of computer simulated contact detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shimizu with the teachings of Kanthasamy further in view of Yamaguchi and Goyal. The motivation/suggestion would be that Shimizu is directed toward FEM analysis of contact objects in CAD models (Shimizu [0010]-[0011], “When a mesh is generated, a model is simplified corresponding to a fluid structure, electromagnetic field analysis, etc … However a long time is required to delete and correct the basic geometric data (parts shape data) Furthermore, a different piece of mesh generation software is required for each analysis, and the analyzer takes a long time to learn each pieces of software. / The present invention aims at solving the above mentioned problems and providing an analysis support apparatus when an analysis is performed using geometric data.”), while Kanthasamy recites the importance of predicting behaviors of FEM models over time (Kanthasamy col. 1 ln. 11, “Predicting behavior or mechanical objects is important in order to assess the operability of the mechanical objects over time…”). Furthermore, Shimizu is directed toward modeling object contacts, and Kanthasamy is directed toward detecting object contacts (Kanthasamy col. 1 ln. 54-55, “The method includes detecting contact region within a simulated model, classifying the contact region in the model.”). Goyal additionally is directed towards detecting contacts between pairs of objects (Goyal Abstract, “Contacts between the bodies are modeled as contacts between a face and a vertex or between edges.”). Yamaguchi (1997) teaches boundary representation objects and classification of non-manifold geometry as well known in the art at the time of Shimizu (2003) and Kanthasamy (2018).
Claim 14 recites sufficiently similar limitations to claim 6 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 7, in addition to the limitations of claim 6 taught by Shimizu in view of Kanthasamy and further in view of Yamaguchi, Goyal teaches:
wherein the one or more contact types comprise at least one of a face-face contact type, a face-vertex contact type, a face-edge contact type, an edge-edge contact type, an edge-vertex contact type, and a vertex-vertex contact type, (Goyal col. 6 ln. 66-1, “Convex polyhedra can contact each other in any of six ways: face-face, face-edge, face-vertex, edge-edge, edge-vertex, vertex-vertex.”)
and wherein the one or more contact regions comprise a two-dimensional (2D) contact region, a one-dimensional (1 D) contact region, and a zero-dimensional (OD) contact region (Goyal Fig. 3 – Fig. 5)
Shimizu, Kanthasamy, Yamaguchi, and Goyal are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: Computer-aided design and finite element methods (FEM). Additionally Yamaguchi and Goyal are both in the field of computer simulated contact detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shimizu with the teachings of Kanthasamy further in view of Yamaguchi and Goyal. The motivation/suggestion would be that Shimizu is directed toward FEM analysis of contact objects in CAD models (Shimizu [0010]-[0011], “When a mesh is generated, a model is simplified corresponding to a fluid structure, electromagnetic field analysis, etc … However a long time is required to delete and correct the basic geometric data (parts shape data) Furthermore, a different piece of mesh generation software is required for each analysis, and the analyzer takes a long time to learn each pieces of software. / The present invention aims at solving the above mentioned problems and providing an analysis support apparatus when an analysis is performed using geometric data.”), while Kanthasamy recites the importance of predicting behaviors of FEM models over time (Kanthasamy col. 1 ln. 11, “Predicting behavior or mechanical objects is important in order to assess the operability of the mechanical objects over time…”). Furthermore, Shimizu is directed toward modeling object contacts, and Kanthasamy is directed toward detecting object contacts (Kanthasamy col. 1 ln. 54-55, “The method includes detecting contact region within a simulated model, classifying the contact region in the model.”). Goyal additionally is directed towards detecting contacts between pairs of objects, which Shimizu models (Goyal Abstract, “Contacts between the bodies are modeled as contacts between a face and a vertex or between edges.”). Yamaguchi (1997) teaches boundary representation objects and classification of non-manifold geometry as well known in the art at the time of Shimizu (2003) and Kanthasamy (2018).
Claim 15 recites limitations sufficiently similar to claim 7 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 8, in addition to the limitations of claim 6 taught by Shimizu in view of Kanthasamy and further in view of Yamaguchi, Goyal teaches:
8. The method of claim 6, further comprising validating each of the one or more contact types based on the corresponding one or more contact regions, wherein: the face-face contact type corresponds to the 2D contact region; (Goyal Fig. 4a)
each of the face-edge contact type and the edge-edge contact type corresponds to the 1 D contact region; (Goyal Fig. 4c, Fig. 5)
and each of the face-vertex contact type, the edge-vertex contact type, and the vertex-vertex contact type corresponds to the OD contact region. (Goyal Fig. 3)
Shimizu, Kanthasamy, Yamaguchi, and Goyal are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: Computer-aided design and finite element methods (FEM). Additionally Yamaguchi and Goyal are both in the field of computer simulated contact detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shimizu with the teachings of Kanthasamy further in view of Yamaguchi and Goyal. The motivation/suggestion would be that Shimizu is directed toward FEM analysis of contact objects in CAD models (Shimizu [0010]-[0011], “When a mesh is generated, a model is simplified corresponding to a fluid structure, electromagnetic field analysis, etc … However a long time is required to delete and correct the basic geometric data (parts shape data) Furthermore, a different piece of mesh generation software is required for each analysis, and the analyzer takes a long time to learn each pieces of software. / The present invention aims at solving the above mentioned problems and providing an analysis support apparatus when an analysis is performed using geometric data.”), while Kanthasamy recites the importance of predicting behaviors of FEM models over time (Kanthasamy col. 1 ln. 11, “Predicting behavior or mechanical objects is important in order to assess the operability of the mechanical objects over time…”). Furthermore, Shimizu is directed toward modeling object contacts, and Kanthasamy is directed toward detecting object contacts (Kanthasamy col. 1 ln. 54-55, “The method includes detecting contact region within a simulated model, classifying the contact region in the model.”). Goyal additionally is directed towards detecting contacts between pairs of objects (Goyal Abstract, “Contacts between the bodies are modeled as contacts between a face and a vertex or between edges.”). Yamaguchi (1997) teaches boundary representation objects and classification of non-manifold geometry as well known in the art at the time of Shimizu (2003) and Kanthasamy (2018).
Claim 16 recites limitations sufficiently similar to claim 8 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the same reasons.
Additional References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pathak et al. US 10331812 B1 discloses contact detection algorithms.
Subrahmanyam US 7159753 B2 discloses welded contacts for CAD wire body representations.
Gadh et al. US 6629065 B1 discloses CAD object contacts.
Zhu et al. Pub. No. 2020/0218790 A1 discloses modeling CAD surface contacts.
Corcoran Pub. No. 2010/0010655 A1 discloses CAD object contacts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY GOLD whose telephone number is (571)270-7171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00 am - 5:00pm) ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. 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.
/HENRY JOYNER GOLD/ Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights