DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 7/11/2023.
Claims 1-6 are pending.
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 .
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. JP2021-010843, filed on 10/01/2021.
Examiner Notes
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. Examiner may also include cited interpretations encompassed within parenthesis, e.g. (Examiner’s interpretation), for clarity. 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.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/11/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “automotive body model acquiring step”, “sensitivity analysis step”, and “automotive part dividing position and integration determining step” in claim 1; “automotive body model acquiring unit”, “sensitivity analysis unit”, and “automotive part dividing position and integration determining unit” in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception (an abstract idea), as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) further do/does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claim(s) under the framework provided in MPEP 2106 and has provided such analysis below.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court
has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
Step 1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category of a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or a Composition of Matter (see MPEP 2106.03);
Step 2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04);
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Step 1:
Claims 1-3 are directed to a method, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a process.
Claims 4-6 are directed to a device, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of machine.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per claim 1, the claim recites the limitations of:
a sensitivity analysis step of setting objectives related to automotive body performance of the automotive body model, constraints related to a volume of the automotive body model, and load and constraint condition or only loading condition given to the automotive body model, and obtaining sensitivity of each of the elements in each of the automotive parts satisfying the objectives under the load and constraint condition or only the loading condition and the constraints; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the Specification, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) which are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind (e.g. observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid, and/or Mathematical Concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), which are defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate and set objectives/constraints relating to automotive body performance and determine (i.e. mathematical concepts) sensitivities relating to set objectives / constraints with/without the aid of pen and paper. Note: per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), “[t]he courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation [ ] Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.”)
and an automotive part dividing position and integration determining step of determining a position where the automotive part is divided and/or the automotive parts to be integrated based on the sensitivity of each of the elements in each of the automotive part. (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the Specification, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate previously determined sensitivities and then determine (i.e. evaluate, judge) a position where the automotive part is divided and/or the parts to be integrated, with/without the aid of pen/paper. Note: per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), “[t]he courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation [ ] Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.”)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
As per claim 1, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present Insignificant Extra Solution Activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
an automotive body model acquiring step of acquiring the automotive body model including the plurality of automotive parts modeled by a plurality of elements and joining points at which the plurality of automotive parts are joined as a parts assembly; (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process.)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B:
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. Per MPEP 2106.05(g), “the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional.” Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “[t]he courts have recognized the following [applicable] computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent claim 4 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected under similar rational.
Claim 2 recites wherein, in the sensitivity analysis step, element densities of each of the elements satisfying the objectives are calculated, and the calculated element densities are used as the sensitivity of each of the elements. The additional element elaborates on the sensitivity analysis step, thus further amounts to Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3 recites wherein, in the automotive body model acquiring step, all additional joining points at which the parts assembly is able to be joined are set to the acquired automotive body model in addition to the joining points. The additional element elaborates on the model acquiring step, thus further amounts to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity per MPEP 2106.05(g) and further failure to add significantly more. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5, the device of clam 4, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 2 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 6, the device of claim 4, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 3 and is rejected under similar rationale.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito US Patent No. 12307169 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “Saito”) in view of Saito, Takanobu, Yoshikiyo Tamai, and Jiro Hiramoto. "A study of topology optimization for joint locations of automotive full vehicle." World Congress of Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimisation. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017. (hereinafter referred to as “Saito2”).
Regarding claim 1, Saito discloses A dividing position and integration of automotive parts determination method for determining a dividing position of an automotive part and/or automotive parts to be integrated by the following steps executed by a computer for an automotive body model including a plurality of the automotive parts (“A method for analyzing sensitivity of automotive body parts with respect to an automotive body performance of an automotive body including the automotive body parts, the method being executed by a compute” [Abstract]), the method comprising: an automotive body model acquiring step of acquiring the automotive body model including the plurality of automotive parts modeled by a plurality of elements (“The automotive body model acquisition step S1 is a step for acquiring the automotive body model 31 (see FIG. 2) including the automotive body parts modelled with a plurality of elements.” [Col.11 Ln.15]); a sensitivity analysis step of setting objectives related to automotive body performance of the automotive body model, constraints related to a volume of the automotive body model, and load and constraint condition or only loading condition given to the automotive body model (“a sensitivity analysis step of: setting an objective condition related to an automotive body performance of the automotive body model, a constraint condition related to a volume of the automotive body model and a loading condition to be imposed on the automotive body model; and obtaining sensitivities of respective elements that satisfies the objective condition under the loading condition and the constraint condition” [Col.3 Ln.6]), and obtaining sensitivity of each of the elements in each of the automotive parts satisfying the objectives under the load and constraint condition or only the loading condition and the constraints (“and automotive body parts sensitivity calculating step of calculating sensitivities of each of the automotive body parts based on the sensitivities of the respective elements.” [Col.3 Ln.15]); and an automotive part dividing position and integration determining step of determining a position where the automotive part is divided and/or the automotive parts to be integrated based on the sensitivity of each of the elements in each of the automotive part (“obtain a sensitivity per element area by dividing the sensitivity of the respective elements by an area of the respective elements; and set an integrated value obtained by adding up the sensitivity per element area for each of the automotive body parts or a value obtained by dividing the integrated value by number of elements included in each of the automotive body parts, as the sensitivity of each of the automotive body parts.” [Col.4 Ln.45]).
Seito fails to specifically disclose joining points at which the plurality of automotive parts are joined as a parts assembly.
However, Saito2 discloses joining points at which the plurality of automotive parts are joined as a parts assembly (“A full vehicle model [ ] was used for the stiffness analysis [ ] the first step is setting of additional spot-welding (i.e. joining) points as the target of optimization, and the second step is retaining only the spot-welding points that make a large contribution to stiffness by topology optimization” Saito2 [Pg.1853 P.1-2])
Saito and Saito2 are analogous art as they both relate to optimizing the design of automotive bodies by identifying which parts most affect performance. Saito discloses “A method for analyzing sensitivity of automotive body parts with respect to an automotive body performance of an automotive body including the automotive body parts” [Abstract]; and Saito2 discloses “the topology optimization method was applied to the optimization of joint elements by using a full vehicle model in order to improve vehicle performance” [Abstract]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saito’s method to include joining points as a target for optimization, as Saito2 discloses, in order to achieve “a greater improvement in body stiffness” Saito2 [Pg.1861 Conclusions].
Regarding claim 2, the method of claim 1, Saito further discloses wherein, in the sensitivity analysis step, element densities of each of the elements satisfying the objectives are calculated, and the calculated element densities are used as the sensitivity of each of the elements (“the sensitivity analysis step includes: calculating material densities of the respective elements satisfying the objective condition; and setting the calculated material densities of the respective elements as the sensitivities of the respective elements.” Saito [Col.3 Ln.20]).
Regarding claim 3, the method of claim 1, Saito fails to specifically disclose wherein, in the automotive body model acquiring step, all additional joining points at which the parts assembly is able to be joined are set to the acquired automotive body model in addition to the joining points.
However, Saito2 discloses wherein, in the automotive body model acquiring step, all additional joining points at which the parts assembly is able to be joined are set to the acquired automotive body model in addition to the joining points (“Figure 6 shows the additional spot-welding points for each minimum distance by
topology optimization in the full vehicle model. With all the minimum distances, the
remaining locations were the rear member, B pillar, A pillar and shock-tower.” Saito2 [Pg.1854 2.2]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saito’s method to include additional joining points, as Saito2 discloses, since “stiffness improved as the number of additional points
Increased” Saito2 [Pg.1854 2.2]
Independent claim 4 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 5, the device of claim 4, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 2 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 6, the device of claim 4, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 3 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon is
considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
SAITO (Optimization Analysis Method And Device For Joined Position Of Structure – JP 2014149734A). “an optimization technique for a joint position, whereby an optimum position can be obtained for a point joint or continuous joint used for joining a plurality of parts composing a structure model” [Abstract]
Saito, Takanobu, Tsuyoshi Shiozaki, and Yoshikiyo Tamai. A study of topology optimization for spot-welding locations in automotive body by using driving simulation. No. 2019-01-0830. SAE Technical Paper, 2019. “a topology method which is able to select effectively from design space was applied to optimization of spot-welding locations for vehicle stiffness performance by using a full vehicle model.” [Abstract]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anthony Chavez whose telephone number is (571) 272-1036. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, 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.
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.
/ANTHONY CHAVEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights