DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 7 -12 are presented for examination.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 7 -12 are found not eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claims 7- 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAITO 1 TAKANOBU (JP 6617812 B1), in the view of EBIKI TAKASHI (JP 2000276514 A), further in the view of Fonseka; Sanjaya (US 20110238401 A1) SAITO 2 TAKANOBU (JP 2014149734 A).
This action is Non – final rejection.
Priority
Applicants’ claims a foreign priority application of JP2021-010846 filed on 01/27/2021 but the priority has not been perfected. The foreign priority to application 2021-010846 needs to be perfected (to include translation) to receive priority to priority date of 01/27/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 07/25/2023 and 06/18/2026 are reviewed and considered. See attached documents.
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are
“an automotive body model acquisition unit”, “a sensitivity analysis unit”, “an automotive part dividing position/integration determination unit”, “a sheet thickness optimization analysis model generation unit”, “a sheet thickness optimization analysis condition setting unit”, “a sheet thickness optimization analysis unit” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Specifically claims discloses “an automotive body model acquisition unit”, “a sensitivity analysis unit”, “an automotive part dividing position/integration determination unit”, “a sheet thickness optimization analysis model generation unit”, “a sheet thickness optimization analysis condition setting unit”, “a sheet thickness optimization analysis unit” in claim 10, lack specific structure identified in the specification. The specification does not appear to disclose any structure for the units for the apparatus claims. Therefore, what structure is included in these units is indefinite. These limitations are inherited in the claims 11-12. See specific mapping for each unit reference as recited in the specification in the rejection under 35 USC 112(a).
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 10-12 are directed to a machine, however the unit disclosed therein does not have structural support in the specification. The specification therefore lacks written description in view of citation for each unit below.
Unit invoking 112/ 6th
Support in the specification (lacking structure support)
an automotive body model acquisition unit
[0015], [0017], [0084], [0085], [0086], [0126]
a sensitivity analysis unit
[0014], [0016], [0084], [0087] - [0091], [0098], [0101]- [0104], [0127]. [0144], [0146]
an automotive part dividing position/integration determination unit
[0015], [0084], [0104], [0108]- [0110], [0112], [0129]
a sheet thickness optimization analysis model generation unit
[0015], [0084], [0112], [0130]
a sheet thickness optimization analysis condition setting unit
[0015], [0084], [0117], [0123], [0131]
a sheet thickness optimization analysis unit
[0015], [0084], [0123], [0132],
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 7- 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention recites a judicial exception, which is directed to judicial exception of an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application, and the claim further does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1: Claims 7- 9 are directed to a method, which is a process, so it is included under a statutory category of the invention. Claims 10 -12 are directed to apparatus, which is a machine, so it is included under a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A: Prong 1: Yes, the claims recite abstract idea. Claims 7-12 recites abstract ideas, which falls under a mental process since a human mind can perform optimization of weight reduction parameters under a settled condition. Abstract ideas are bolded as shown below in claim-by-claim analysis.
Claims 7 and 10: recites
setting an objective regarding automotive body performance of the automotive body model, a constraint regarding a volume of the automotive body model, and a load and constraint condition or only a loading condition given to the automotive body model; under a broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim limitation recites abstract idea of a mental process. There is no specific way of setting conditions in the claim so, a human mind can set conditions by performing observation, evaluation, analysis and judgment on the model. For example, a human can set the performance of the model, the volume and constraints conditions that a human is looking for to accomplish in the model.
an automotive part dividing position/integration determination step of determining a dividing position of the automotive parts and/or the automotive parts to be integrated based on the sensitivity of each element; under a broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim limitation recites abstract idea of a mental process. This limitation does not recite a specific way of dividing/integrating in the claim so a human mind can observe the obtained sensitivity of each element (data gathered) and integrate the components based on their value into a combined model.
a sheet thickness optimization analysis model generation step of dividing and/or integrating the automotive parts for which the dividing position and/or integration has been determined among the automotive parts in the automotive body model: under a broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim limitation recites abstract idea of a mental process. This limitation does not recite a specific way of determining the dividing/integrating among the automotive part in the claim so a human mind can observe the automotive parts in the automotive body model and make a judgment and analysis to determine the dividing/integrating among the automotive part.
generating an optimization analysis model having a sheet thickness of the automotive part in the automotive body model as a design variable; under a broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim limitation recites abstract idea of a mental process. A human mind can generate an optimization analysis model by using sheet thickness as a design variable by making a relationship with other variables to make a judgment on how varying thickness could affect other designing variables.
setting an objective regarding a body mass of the optimization analysis model and a constraint regarding automotive body performance of the optimization analysis model as an optimization analysis condition for performing an optimization analysis of the sheet thickness of the automotive part in the optimization analysis model, and setting a load and constraint condition given to the optimization analysis model; under a broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim limitation recites abstract idea of a mental process. There is no specific way of setting conditions in the claim so, a human mind can set conditions by performing observation, evaluation, analysis and judgment on the model. For example, a human can set the body mass, the performance of the model, the volume and constraints conditions that a human is looking for to accomplish in the model.
performing the optimization analysis of the sheet thickness under the load and constraint condition and the optimization analysis condition set in the sheet thickness optimization analysis condition setting step, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim limitation recites abstract idea of a mental process. A human mind can perform optimization of sheet thickness under a load and constraint condition using physics concepts, equations or theories and make a judgment by varying the load or other constraint conditions until an optimized thickness is computed with the help of pen and paper.
Step 2A prong 2: No
The above judicial exceptions do not recite additional elements that integrate the exceptions into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not have additional elements of a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Claims recite gathering data and outputting information which is insignificant extra solution activity. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource V. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), and claims also recites data manipulation by “displaying” outputs - Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); MPEP 2106.05(g).
This claim limitations recite data gathering:
Claim 7 and 10:
an automotive body model acquisition step of acquiring the automotive body model including the plurality of automotive parts modeled by a plurality of elements and joining points for joining the plurality of automotive parts as a parts assembly - (insignificant extra- solution activity – data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
obtaining sensitivity of each element satisfying the objective under the load and constraint condition or only the loading condition and the constraint- (insignificant extra- solution activity – data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
obtaining an optimized sheet thickness of each of the automotive parts in the optimization analysis model - (insignificant extra- solution activity – data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: NO:
The claims do not cite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. As outlined above the claims merely use a computer as a tool to gather, output information and to perform the abstract idea of optimization design variable using a settled criterion and other designing variables. As of claim 7 and 10, a computer is used to execute the method and there is no improvement on the computer, so it is no significantly more than the abstract idea (Court found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include, Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
Generally, the independent claims inherently recite abstract ideas based on the above analysis and let’s see if there are any significant more claim limitations exist in the dependent claims.
Claims 8 and 11:
calculating an element density of each element satisfying the objective under the constraint, setting the calculated element density of each element as sensitivity of each element – it further defines abstract idea, and it recites a mathematical concept of calculating density, and a mental process of setting output value, so no new additional element which is significantly more.
Claims 9 and 12:
wherein the automotive body model acquisition step includes setting all additional joining points capable of joining the parts assembly in addition to the joining points with respect to the acquired automotive body model – it further defines abstract idea of setting additional joint point on a model, so no new additional element which is significantly more.
Generally, based on the above claim by claim analysis and claims as a whole, the claims do not recite any additional element which is significantly more than the claimed invention. The claim is merely a mental process of optimizing design variable on automotive part using a model for weight reduction and a computer is used to execute the method, while merely using a computer is not significantly more than abstract idea since there is no improvement in the computer is recited in the claims.
Therefore claims 7-12 are not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 7- 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAITO 1 TAKANOBU (JP 6617812 B1), in the view of EBIKI TAKASHI (JP 2000276514 A), further in the view of Fonseka; Sanjaya (US 20110238401 A1) SAITO 2 TAKANOBU (JP 2014149734 A).
As of claim 7, Saito 1 teaches An automotive body weight reduction method for reducing a weight of an automotive body model including a plurality of automotive parts, the method being executed by a computer and comprising: ([0023], a computer analyzes the sensitivity of a vehicle body… it is possible to calculate the sensitivity to body performance for each body part, making it possible to accurately select the body parts for which countermeasures should be taken to improve body performance, thereby contributing to improved body performance and weight reduction).
An automotive body model acquisition step of acquiring the automotive body model including the plurality of automotive parts modeled by a plurality of elements and ([0016] a vehicle body model acquisition unit that acquires a vehicle body model composed of the vehicle body components modeled by a plurality of elements).
a sensitivity analysis step of, setting an objective regarding automotive body performance of the automotive body model, a constraint regarding a volume of the automotive body model, and a load and constraint condition or only a loading condition given to the automotive body model, and ([0037], The sensitivity analysis unit 15 sets a target condition related to the vehicle body performance of the vehicle body model 31, a constraint condition related to the volume of the vehicle body model 31, and a load condition applied to the vehicle body model 31, and the target condition is set under the load condition and the constraint condition).
obtaining sensitivity of each element satisfying the objective under the load and constraint condition or only the loading condition and the constraint; ([0037] The sensitivity of each element that satisfies the condition is obtained, and the material density of each element is calculated as the sensitivity of each element…[0064], This step involves setting constraints on the volume of 1 and load conditions applied to the vehicle body model, and determining the sensitivity of each element that satisfies the objective condition under these constraints).
Saito 1 does not explicitly teach joining points for joining the plurality of automotive parts as a parts assembly, an automotive part dividing position/integration determination step of determining a dividing position of the automotive parts and/or the automotive parts to be integrated based on the sensitivity of each element; a sheet thickness optimization analysis model generation step of dividing and/or integrating the automotive parts for which the dividing position and/or integration has been determined among the automotive parts in the automotive body model, and generating an optimization analysis model having a sheet thickness of the automotive part in the automotive body model as a design variable; a sheet thickness optimization analysis condition setting step of setting an objective regarding a body mass of the optimization analysis model and a constraint regarding automotive body performance of the optimization analysis model as an optimization analysis condition for performing an optimization analysis of the sheet thickness of the automotive part in the optimization
analysis model, and setting a load and constraint condition given to the optimization analysis model; and a sheet thickness optimization analysis step of performing the optimization analysis of the sheet thickness under the load and constraint condition and the optimization analysis condition set in the sheet thickness optimization analysis condition setting step, and obtaining an optimized sheet thickness of each of the automotive parts in the optimization analysis model.
While Ebiki teaches an automotive part dividing position/integration determination step of determining a dividing position of the automotive parts and/or the automotive parts to be integrated based on the sensitivity of each element; ([0032], <Calculation of Equivalent Plate Thickness> The optimal model of the B pillar 1 generated by the above-described procedure is composed of a plurality of elements having different plate thicknesses as shown in FIG. The magnitude of the internal energy that these multiple elements have as individual elements depends on the degree to which the individual elements contribute to the strength of the optimal model as a whole structure (i.e., the intensity relative to the strength of the entire structure). It can be considered to be proportional to the strength of each element).
a sheet thickness optimization analysis model generation step of dividing and/or integrating the automotive parts for which the dividing position and/or integration has been determined among the automotive parts in the automotive body model, and ([0039], Therefore, in this embodiment, when calculating the equivalent plate thickness Te of the structure, the structure is divided at an appropriate position, and the equivalent plate thickness T of each of the divided members is calculated. Te is calculated. In this case, in the actual production process, by adopting the so-called tailored blank method, the respective divided members are welded).
generating an optimization analysis model having a sheet thickness of the automotive part in the automotive body model as a design variable; ([0040]
FIG. 10 shows an embodiment of the present invention. It is a figure explaining the optimal welding position (welding line) at the time of realizing equivalent plate thickness Te of a target structure by welding a plurality of divided members. Of the members, reinforcement 12. The figure shows a state in which a welding position is set in a mesh model showing a state in which the inner and inner 13 are joined… [0078] the operator can easily select the optimal plate thickness in a short time that will achieve the target strength characteristics and a lightweight structure, although it will be slightly heavier than the optimal model (in this embodiment, the model shown in Figure 7 )).
Saito 1 and Ebiki is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it teaches optimization technique aimed at improving vehicle performance, reducing weight and determining the division/integration scheme of the vehicle body components by sensitivity. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate Ebiki’s teaching of determining the division/integration scheme of the vehicle body components by sensitivity into Saito 1’s automotive body part with a plurality of elements to reduce the weight of automotive.
The motivation would have been to calculate the sensitivity to body performance for each body part, making it possible to accurately select the body parts for which countermeasures should be taken to improve body performance, thereby contributing to improved body performance and weight reduction (Saito 1, [0023]) and to obtain an optimum model having an optimum plate thickness for each element constituting the predetermined structural body model (Ebiki, [0026]).
The modified model does not explicitly teach joining points for joining the plurality of automotive parts as a parts assembly; a sheet thickness optimization analysis condition setting step of setting an objective regarding a body mass of the optimization analysis model and a constraint regarding automotive body performance of the optimization analysis model as an optimization analysis condition for performing an optimization analysis of the sheet thickness of the automotive part in the optimization analysis model, and setting a load and constraint condition given to the optimization analysis model; and a sheet thickness optimization analysis step of performing the optimization analysis of the sheet thickness under the load and constraint condition and the optimization analysis condition set in the sheet thickness optimization analysis condition setting step, and obtaining an optimized sheet thickness of each of the automotive parts in the optimization analysis model.
While Fonseka teaches a sheet thickness optimization analysis condition setting step of setting an objective regarding a body mass of the optimization analysis model and a constraint regarding automotive body performance of the optimization analysis model as an optimization analysis condition for performing an optimization analysis of the sheet thickness of the automotive part in the optimization analysis model, and ([0024] The optimization application 104 is a program executing on the computer 102. In one embodiment, the optimization application 104 finds optimum thicknesses of components in a vehicle side structure such that the side structure has minimal weight to meet or exceed minimum crash test requirements. The optimum thickness of a component as discussed herein includes any thickness value of components that achieve the objectives of low weight and vehicle crash test requirements).
setting a load and constraint condition given to the optimization analysis model; and ([0052] If all the iterations within the grouping are complete 418, the process 400 identifies 420 one or more intermediate optimum results. An intermediate optimum is a simulation result that has the lowest mass and meets a minimum force requirement of the roof-crush crash test and a minimum survival space requirement of the SICE crash test)
a sheet thickness optimization analysis step of performing the optimization analysis of the sheet thickness under the load and constraint condition and the optimization analysis condition set in the sheet thickness optimization analysis condition setting step, and ([0027] the optimization application 104 interfaces with the simulation application 108 to provide the results of the simulations to the result optimizer 114. The result optimizer selects intermediate optimums by identifying input iterations with the lowest mass in the grouping 106 that also met the minimum roof crush strength requirement and the minimum survival space requirement… [0035] For example, thickness values outside of a certain parameter may not be feasible to engineer or may cause the vehicle side structure to become unbalanced. In other embodiments, the input values for each component may include the weight of the component. The thickness of the component can be calculated based upon the weight of the material used to make the component. Similarly, if a thickness value is used as an input, the weight can be determined based upon the weight of the material used to make the component).
obtaining an optimized sheet thickness of each of the automotive parts in the optimization analysis model ([0028], Thus, the optimization application 104 can find a optimum thickness of components in a vehicle side structure by executing two or more cycles of simulations and optimizations).
Fonseka is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it teaches optimization of vehicle structure using different conditions. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate Fonseka’s teaching of thickness optimization of vehicle components under a criterion into the modified model to reduce the weight of automotive.
The motivation would have been to find an optimum thickness for vehicle side body components that meet varying design goals, design engineers typically simulate vehicle safety tests with components of varying thicknesses by performing iteration which comprises a thickness value for each component in the side structure (Fonseka, [0004]- [0006]).
The modified model does not explicitly teach joining points for joining the plurality of automotive parts as a parts assembly.
While Saito 2 teaches joining points for joining the plurality of automotive parts as a parts assembly; ([0032], first fixed joint setting unit 17 performs a stiffness analysis on the structural model 25 using the joint candidates 29 set in the joint generation unit 16, and calculates stress, strain, strain energy, load, etc. Next, it ranks these calculated results and selects one joint candidate 29 with the highest strain energy for each component assembly. The fact that a particular joint candidate 29 has the highest strain energy means that that joint candidate 29 is the most important in increasing the stiffness of the structural model 25. Then, this selected point is set as the fixed joint point 31).
Saito 2 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it teaches optimum position of a point joint or a continuous joint used for joining a plurality of parts constituting a structure model composed of a planar element. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to integrate Saito 2’s teaching of joining points to join the plurality of automotive parts into the modified model to join different automotive parts in weight reduction process of the automotive.
The motivation would have been to improve rigidity of the components by performing optimization of the joint position in the structure model 41 (vehicle body, see FIG. 10) under various conditions, and by performing the rigidity analysis on the structure model to help reduction of automotive weight (Saito 2, [0055]).
Claim 10 is in the same scope as claim 7, so claim 10 is rejected under the same rational as claim 7.
As of claim 8, the modified model teaches all the limitations of claim 7, and Saito 1 also teaches calculating an element density of each element satisfying the objective under the constraint and setting the calculated element density of each element as sensitivity of each element. ([009], In the above (1), the sensitivity analysis step is characterized by calculating the material density of each element that satisfies the objective conditions and using the calculated material density of each element as the sensitivity of each element).
Claim 11 is in the same scope as claim 8, so claim 11 is rejected under the same rational as claim 8.
As of claim 9, the modified model teaches all the limitations of claim 7, and Saito 2 also teaches, wherein the automotive body model acquisition step includes setting all additional joining points capable of joining the parts assembly in addition to the joining points with respect to the acquired automotive body model ([0028] –[0029], The joint generation unit 16 corresponds to one embodiment of the joint candidate setting unit of the present invention. The joint generation unit 16 sets a joint candidate 29 between two parts (hereinafter referred to as "part A" and "part B," respectively). The procedure for setting the joint candidate 29 will be explained based on the flowchart shown in Figure 3… [0031], the number of joint candidates 29 may be set according to the volume of the analysis target unit 27, or as many as possible within the settable range may be set). The engagement generating portion 16 corresponds to one embodiment of the engagement candidate setting portion of the present invention; the engagement generating section 16 sets engagement candidates 29 (equivalent to setting additional engagement points) between a certain two parts (hereinafter referred to as "part A" and "part B", respectively).
Claim 12 is in the same scope as claim 9, so claim 12 is rejected under the same rational as claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Koenig; Gerhard (US 5729463 A, Date Published, 1998-03-17) this application is similar to the claimed invention since it teaches designing and producing of lightweight automobile bodies by conducting structural analysis to determine whether the shell model meets the selected structural performance target
Saito; Takanobu (US 20150356237 A1, Date Published, 2015-12-10) is similar to the claimed invention since it teaches shape optimization and setting step of setting a crashworthy optimum shaping condition for the optimization block model; a crashworthiness analysis condition setting step of setting a crashworthiness analysis condition for the structural body model.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABRHAM A. TAMIRU whose telephone number is (571)272-6987. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571 272 4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABRHAM ALEHEGN TAMIRU/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/AKASH SAXENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Wednesday, August 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights