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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status
This instant application No. 18/274,533 has claims 10-15 pending.
Priority /Filing Date
Applicant claimed Foreign Priority from Japanese Application No. JP2021-010836, filed on January 27, 2021, and Japanese Application No. JP2021-151704, filed on September 17, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the Applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated July 27, 2023 and July 2, 2026 are acknowledged by the Examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. 609 C(2), a copy of each of the PTOL-1449s initialed and dated by the Examiner is attached to the instant Office action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
4. Claims 10-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,686,455 B2 from the same inventor and assignee. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the 12,686,455 B2 Patent include all the limitations of this Application as well as additional limitations.
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.
5. 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 limitations uses a generic placeholder (such as ‘configured to’) 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 analysis object model setting unit,
an optimization analysis model generation unit,
a variable loading condition setting unit,
a target fatigue life setting unit, an optimization analysis condition setting unit,
an optimization analysis unit,
a generation unit for analysis object model with joining candidate points selected and set, a
performance calculation unit for selected joining candidate points and a determination unit, and an optimal joining point determination unit,
in claim 12.
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.
6. Claims 10-15 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.
i) As per claims 10, 12 and 14 - the claim(s) recite the limitation:
obtaining number of cycles to failure of each of the joining candidate points for each of the loading conditions of the vibration patterns, obtaining the sum of ratios between the number of cycles and the number of cycles to failure of the loading condition of each vibration pattern as much as the number of sequences of the variable loading condition set in the target fatigue life setting step…..(Claim 10)
obtain number of cycles to failure of each of the joining candidate points for each of the loading conditions of the vibration patterns, obtain the sum of ratios between the number of cycles and the number of cycles to failure of the loading condition of each vibration pattern as much as the number of sequences of the variable loading condition set in the target fatigue life setting unit……..(Claim 12)
obtaining number of cycles to failure of each of the joining candidate points for each of the loading conditions of the vibration patterns, obtaining the sum of ratios between the number of cycles and the number of cycles to failure of the loading condition of each vibration pattern as much as the number of sequences of the variable loading condition set in the target fatigue life setting unit…….(Claim 14)
It is not clear from the recitation what is meant by sum of ratios between the number of cycles and the number of cycles to failure of the loading condition of each vibration pattern. What is number of cycles and the number of cycles to failure of the loading condition of each vibration pattern and how they are different. How the sum of ratios is connected to number of sequences. The claim language is confusing and does not define an optimization analysis condition setting step in a clear and concise manner. Therefore, these claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
As per depended claims, they are rejected for incorporating the above errors from their respective parent claim by dependency.
For claim 12, the claim limitations:
‘an analysis object model setting unit’,
‘an optimization analysis model generation unit’,
‘a variable loading condition setting unit’,
‘a target fatigue life setting unit, an optimization analysis condition setting unit’,
‘an optimization analysis unit’,
‘a generation unit for analysis object model with joining candidate points selected and set’,
‘a performance calculation unit for selected joining candidate points and a determination unit’, and ‘an optimal joining point determination unit’,
invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The Specification does not disclose the specific structure/algorithm or functional logic of the claim limitations beyond what is recited in the claim limitations themselves. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Any claim not specifically treated is rejected by virtue of its dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 10-15 are allowable pending resolving all intervening issues such as the USC 112 and Double Patenting rejections above. Reasons for allowance will be held in abeyance pending final recitation of the claims.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takanobu Saito (Pub. No.: US 2020/0039592 A1) teaches an analysis method of optimizing a joint location of an automotive body of this disclosure is to determine an additional welded point to be added to an automotive body frame model. An optimization analysis step to apply the load generated at the joining portion to the optimization analysis mode to select an additional welded point that satisfies the optimization analysis conditions from the welding candidates.
Jasuja et al. (Patent No. US 6,766,206 B1) teaches A system and method for designing an automotive body structure. A CAE system receives certain programmable parameters or user input data, and generates a computer model of a body structure which is analyzed and optimized in order to minimize the weight of the body structure by use of adhesive bond technology.
Wang et al. (Chinese Publication: No.: CN110287550A) conceptually presents discloses a body-in-white welding spot optimization method based on a variable density method and the fatigue life analysis, and the method comprises the specific steps of building a finite element model of a whole vehicle, and building a body-in-white welding spot finite element model.
Rashid et al. (Improving the Dynamic Characteristics of Body-in-White Structure Using Structural Optimization, 2014, Hindawi Publishing Corporation, pp 1-11) attempt to improve the existing torsion and bending modes by using structural optimization subjected to dynamic load without compromising other factors such as mass and stiffness of the structure. The natural frequency of the design was modified by identifying and reinforcing the structure at critical locations.
Ouisse et al. (Robust design of spot welds in automotive structures: A decision-making methodology, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 24 (2010) 1172–1190) highlights a decision-making methodology which allows some aspects of the robustness issues to be integrated into the spot weld design process. Some decision-making indicators are presented to help the analyst to plan robust resistance spot welds designs along with quality controls in order to insure a specified level of structural performance.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IFTEKHAR A KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5699. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9:00AM-6:00PM (CST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emerson Puente can be reached on (571)272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/IFTEKHAR A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights