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 .
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 1.
STEP 1: Yes. The claim is directed to a “method” which is a process.
STEP 2A PRONE ONE:
The claim recites multiple mathematical abstractions.
a first step in which a finite element and a node are generated in a raw material;
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation / formula. In this case this is the discretization of a modeled raw material into a mesh of finite elements and nodes, which is a geometric / numerical operation producing a mathematical representation.
a second step in which a fracture surface is calculated for a sheared material with a shearing force applied to the raw material;
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation / formula. In this case this is a calculation of the location and geometry of a fracture surface from the modeled loading condition.
a third step in which an element of the sheared material is divided into a first group and a second group with the fracture surface as a boundary;
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation / formula. In this case this is a calculation to divide elements of the sheared material into respective groups.
a fourth step in which an average value is obtained by averaging information of a second group element or a second group node included in the second group; and
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation / formula. In this case this is a calculation by taking an average.
a fifth step in which a final fracture surface is generated by reflecting the average value in the fracture surface, wherein the final fracture surface is recognized as a boundary surface.
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation / formula. In this case this is the modification of the numerical definition of the computed fracture surface using the computed average value i.e. mathematical calculation.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: The claim does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: The claim does not recite an inventive concept or significantly more than the exception.
Conclusion: Claim 1 is directed to multiple mathematical abstractions, not integrated into a practical application and lacks an inventive concept. Therefore, it is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 2:
This claim merely adds further geometric operation in which a first group element or a first group node is regenerated using the computed final fracture surface as the mesh boundary (claim 2). The regenerated mesh is the same type of model data on which the claim already operates, and the claim recites no use of the regenerated mesh. Thus, the claim remains a mathematical abstraction. MPEP 2106.05(a). This does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not resolve the issues from the claim it depends upon.
Regarding Claims 3-4:
These claims merely add further classification steps in which a node is located in the fracture surface is recognized as a fracture surface node and is divided from other nodes (claim 3), or in which the fracture surface node and a node included in the first group are determined as remaining nodes (claim 4). These are observations, evaluations, and judgments that can be performed in the mind or with pen and paper. Thus, these claims remain as a mathematical abstractions / mental processes. MPEP 2106.05(a). This does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not resolve the issues from the claim it depends upon.
Regarding Claims 5:
This claim merely restates the reflecting operation already recited in the fifth step of claim 1, reciting that information of the second group element or the second group node is reflected in the final structure surface (claim 5). The claim adds no element beyond those already present in the claim from which it depends. Thus, the claim remains a mathematical abstraction. MPEP 2106.05(a). This does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not resolve the issues from the claim it depends upon.
Regarding Claims 6-7 and 9:
These claims merely narrow the abstract idea by specifying the mathematical operation performed by the iterative averaging recurrence and its minimum iteration count of three (claim 6), the node averaging formulation in which an equal tensile force is applied to all edges define by the second group node (claim 7), and the node relocation, nearest node value substation and arithmetic mean used to transfer values to a regenerated mesh (claim 9). Specifying which formula is used does not remove the operation from the mathematical concepts grouping. Thus, the claim remains as mathematical abstractions. MPEP 2106.05(a). This does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not resolve the issues from the claim it depends upon.
Regarding Claim 8:
This claim adds a negative limitation requiring that the second group element or the second group node is not deleted before the final structure surface is generated (claim 8). This limitation is an additional element and does not itself recite a judicial exception. However, the limitation constrains which operands remain available when the recited averaging is performed rather than applying the recited calculation to anything outside the model. It adds no affirmative step to the claim and the benefit it secures is the accuracy of the computed fracture surface. An improvement to the accuracy of a mathematical model is not an improvement to a technology or technical field. MPEP 2106.05(a). This does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not resolve the issues from the claim it depends upon.
Claim 10.
STEP 1: Yes. The claim is directed to a “method” which is a process.
STEP 2A PRONE ONE:
The claim recites multiple mathematical abstractions.
a first step in which by a finite element mesh system for a material, the material is divided into a finite element and a node;
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation / formula. In this case this is the discretization of a modeled material into a mesh of finite elements and nodes, which is a geometric / numerical operation producing a mathematical data structure. No physical material is divided. A mesh representation is divided.
a second step in which in a shearing simulation process, element strength degrading algorithm and a shearing point prediction function of ductile fracture theory are used to determine a shearing point, or a shearing boundary area that is an element strength degraded area in a raw material is generated so that the entire forming load is sharply degraded;
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation / formula. In this case this is use of an algorithm to compute a shearing point which is a calculation. The alternative is a numerical assignment.
a third step in which a deleting target area is determined based on the shearing boundary, and a free node that is a deleting target included in the deleting target area is generated;
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation / formula. In this case this is the geometric determination of a region of the model from a stated boundary, and the classification of nodes falling within that region into a target set which is labeled “free”. Generating a free node is not generating anything physical, it is a set membership operation performed on nodes that already exist in the mesh.
a fourth step in which a constant tensile force is applied to all line segments connected to each other by the free node, and an unbalance or resistance force of the material is reduced by placing the free node at the appropriate position or a node smoothing method is applied, the free node is located in a shearing boundary, and a mesh containing a degenerate finite element is regenerated;
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation / formula. In this case this is relaxation or minimization computation performed on mesh coordinates. The recited constant tensile force is not applied to a physical article, it is applied “to all line segments connected to each other by the free node”, and line segments are edges of the finite element discretization. Both alternatives recited in the limitation are mathematical relocation to a computed position or application of a smoothing operation.
a fifth step in which a state variable value is assigned to the free node as a nodal value of a non-deletion node close to each free node, and the state variable value is assigned to the finite element defined by the free node; and
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation / formula. In this case this is a nearest neighbor selection followed by a copy by identifying which non-deletion node is close to a given free node and assigning that node’s value to the free node and to the element it defines.
a sixth step in which a numerical preform or billet sheared in the shearing simulation is formed, and a re-meshing is performed with respect to a mesh containing the degenerate finite element of the numerical preform or billet and thus a strength degraded finite element collected in the shearing boundary is deleted, and a flawless mesh is generated in terms of finite element analysis,
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation / formula. In this case this is a further geometric operation (calculation) on model data by rebuilding the mesh and removing the degenerate and strength degraded elements from it.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: The claim does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: The claim does not recite an inventive concept or significantly more than the exception.
wherein through the first step to the sixth step, a numerical preform or billet that is able to be used for engineering analysis of a consecutive metal forming process immediately after the shearing process is obtained.
MPEP 2106.05(h) – This recites no act and generally links the abstract idea to the field of metal forming simulation. Them claim requires only that the numerical billet be “able to be used for”, not that it be used.
Conclusion: Claim 10 is directed to multiple mathematical abstractions, not integrated into a practical application and lacks an inventive concept. Therefore, it is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over “Numerical modelling of ductile fracture in blanking” by BROKKEN et al. [herein “BROKKEN”] (1999), “Simulation of stationary crack during blanking using node separation method” by KOMORI et al. [herein “KOMORI”] (2014).
Regarding Claim 1, BROKKEN teaches
A shearing process simulation method comprising:
a first step in which a finite element and a node are generated in a raw material;
“This thesis focuses on the construction of a finite element model for the blanking process, which can accurately predict one of the most important properties of a blanked product: the shape of the cut edge.”. (Pg. 9).
“First, an initial discretisation is created, on which the finite element approximation of the exact solution is computed.”. (Pg. 43).
“For the finite element implementation this implies that the position of the nodes, which are grid points, must be prescribed throughout the simulation.”. (Pg. 16).
This shows the initial step of simulating a shearing operation by generating a computational mesh made of finite elements and nodes to discretize the raw sheet metal before the simulation begins.
a second step in which a fracture surface is calculated for a sheared material with a shearing force applied to the raw material;
“A metal sheet is placed on a die, and perforated by a punch. This results in a blank, or slug, being separated from the sheet.”. (Pg. 12).
“Ductile fracture is incorporated by a discrete cracking approach. To control initiation and propagation of discrete cracks, the fracture potential is defined.”. (Pg. 9).
“The resulting discretised crack trajectory should be considered as an approximation of the real crack trajectory.”. (Pg. 56).
This shows the application of a shearing force via a punch to the raw material, alongside the mathematical calculation of a discrete crack trajectory (fracture surface) to model the separation of the sheared material.
BROKKEN does not explicitly teach but KOMORI teaches
a third step in which an element of the sheared material is divided into a first group and a second group with the fracture surface as a boundary;
“In such operations, a material is divided into two parts by fracturing.”. (Pg. 1102).
“Moreover, when the material adjacent to the crack tip fractures, one node is separated into two nodes so that the element interface can fracture.”. (Pg. 1103).
“When a crack becomes stationary, one fractured surface can contact the other fractured surface.”. (Pg. 1104).
This shows dividing the meshed elements of the material into two separate parts (a first and second group) across the crack interface, creating two distinct fractured surfaces.
a fourth step in which an average value is obtained by averaging information of a second group element or a second group node included in the second group; and
“Fig. 2 shows the finite-element mesh at the contact line. The radial displacement rate of one fractured surface is assumed to be coupled with the radial displacement rate of the other fractured surface.”. (Pg. 1104).
“Therefore, using the radial displacement rate of node i ri v and that of node j rj v , which are on one fractured surface, the radial displacement rate of node k rk v , which is on the other fractured surface, is assumed to be where v denotes the displacement rate.”. (Pg. 1104).
“
PNG
media_image1.png
92
306
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”. (Pg. 1104).
This shows calculating an average value (a linearly interpolated displacement rate) for a node on the boundary by extracting and mathematically averaging the kinematic information from nodes belonging to the opposing second group’s fractured surface.
a fifth step in which a final fracture surface is generated by reflecting the average value in the fracture surface,
wherein the final fracture surface is recognized as a boundary surface.
“Thus, one fractured surface is prevented from penetrating the other fractured surface. Eq. (5) is adopted when node k slightly penetrates into the line that connects nodes i and j.”. (Pg. 1104).
“Furthermore, the contact line, which denotes the contact surface in the simulation because of axisymmetry, is almost parallel to the coordinate axis in the axial direction.”. (Pg. 1104).
This shows applying the calculated average displacement rate to the nodes on the fracture surface to correct their positions, thereby reflecting that average onto the fracture surface and strictly enforcing it as a physical boundary surface (contact line) between the divided materials.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate KOMORI’s teaching of node separation with coupled displacement rates between the two fractured surfaces with BROKKEN’s method of finite element simulation of the blanking process using discrete crack propagation. The reason for doing so would have been to prevent the two fractured surfaces created by the advancing crack from penetrating one another, which could corrupt the predicted geometry of the cut edge that BROKKEN produces. As expressed by KOMORI, coupling the radial displacement rate of the node on one fractured surface to the nodes on the opposing fractured surface means that “Thus, one fractured surface is prevented from penetrating the other fractured surface.”. (Pg. 1104).
Regarding Claim 3, BROKKEN does not explicitly teach but KOMORI teaches
The shearing process simulation method of claim 1, wherein a node located in the fracture surface is recognized as a fracture surface node and is divided from other nodes.
“In such operations, a material is divided into two parts by fracturing.”. (Pg. 1102).
“Moreover, when the material adjacent to the crack tip fractures, one node is separated into two nodes so that the element interface can fracture.”. (Pg. 1103).
“When a crack becomes stationary, one fractured surface can contact the other fractured surface. Hence, the contact between the two fractured surfaces should be considered.”. (Pg. 1104).
This shows identifying the node situated on the advancing fracture surface as the crack tip as the node subject to fracture treatment and then dividing that node from the surrounding nodes by separating it into nodes, which produces the two distinct fractured surfaces referenced.
Regarding Claim 5, BROKKEN does not explicitly teach but KOMORI teaches
The shearing process simulation method of claim 1, wherein information of the second group element or the second group node included in the second group is reflected in the final fracture surface.
“The radial displacement rate of one fractured surface is assumed to be coupled with the radial displacement rate of the other fractured surface.”. (Pg. 1104).
“
PNG
media_image2.png
239
948
media_image2.png
Greyscale
”. (Pg. 1104).
“Thus, one fractured surface is prevented from penetrating the other fractured surface.”. (Pg. 1104).
This shows taking the displacement rate information belonging to nodes of the second group and applying it to determine the displacement rate of a node lying on the fracture surface, so that the resulting position of that node, and therefore the geometry of the final fracture surface, incorporates the second group nodal information.
Regarding Claim 8, BROKKEN does not explicitly teach but KOMORI teaches
The shearing process simulation method of claim 1, wherein before the final fracture surface is generated, the second group element or the second group node is not deleted.
“Moreover, when the material adjacent to the crack tip fractures, one node is separated into two nodes so that the element interface can fracture.”. (Pg. 1103).
“Thipprakmas et al. (2008) reported the simulation of a stationary crack in fine blanking using the element deletion method, whereas Komori (2013) used the node separation method …”. (Pg. 1103).
“When a crack becomes stationary, one fracture surface contacts another fracture surface …”. (Abstract).
This shows separating the node into two nodes rather than removing any element or node, so that the material on both sides of the fracture remains present in the mesh throughout the analysis.
Regarding Claim 9, BROKKEN does not explicitly teach but KOMORI teaches
The shearing process simulation method of claim 1, wherein the second group node is moved to a point close to the fracture surface the average value,
“Eq. (5) is adopted when node k slightly penetrates into the line that connects nodes i and j.”. (Pg. 1104).
This shows relocating the node onto the fracture surface by operation of the averaged displacement rate whenever that node would otherwise pass beyond the surface.
an imaginary mesh is regenerated, and
“Moreover, when the material adjacent to the crack tip fractures, one node is separated into two nodes so that the element interface can fracture. Finally, remeshing is performed …”. (Pg. 1103).
This shows regenerating the mesh of the simulated material after the separation is carried out, producing a new numerical mesh for the continuing analysis.
a nodal value of the second group node in the imaginary mesh is replaced by a nodal value of a node closest thereto, and
“Moreover, when the material adjacent to the crack tip fractures, one node is separated into two nodes so that the element interface can fracture.”. (Pg. 1103).
This shows that the two nodes produced by the separation occupy the same location at the movement of separation, so the nodal value carried by each of them is the nodal value of the node nearest to it.
KOMORI does not explicitly teach but BROKKEN teaches
an elemental value of the second group element is replaced by an arithmetic mean of the nodal value.
“First construct a continuous state variable field on the nodes of the old mesh. Extrapolating the integration point state variables to the nodes and averaging the contribution of the connected elements to a node, will accomplish this. Then find the location of the new nodes in the old mesh and interpolate the continuous field to these locations. This results in a continuous field, spanned by the nodal values in the new mesh. The state at the integration points of the new mesh can easily be recovered by interpolation at element level on the new mesh.”. (Pg. 39).
This shows determining the values within each element of the regenerated mesh from the values at that element’s own nodes.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over “Numerical modelling of ductile fracture in blanking” by BROKKEN et al. [herein “BROKKEN”] (1999), “Simulation of stationary crack during blanking using node separation method” by KOMORI et al. [herein “KOMORI”] (2014), and “Numerical simulation of continuous damage and fracture in metal-forming processes with 2D mesh adaptive methodology” by LABERGERE et al. [herein “LABERGERE”] (2014).
Regarding Claim 2, BROKKEN and KOMORI do not explicitly teach but LABERGERE teaches
The shearing process simulation method of claim 1, wherein a first group element or a first group node of the first group is regenerated with the final fracture surface as the boundary surface.
“Prior to the use of an automatic mesh generator, contour lines must be discretized with respect to the prescribed size distribution provided by the geometrical and physical error indicators introduced before.”. (Pg. 53).
“In the context of 2D adaptation, a full remeshing (including field transfer as well) of the structure can be performed at each step …”. (Pg. 53).
“New boundaries are then defined with respect to a new mesh size based on the error indicators.”. (Pg. 55).
This shows regenerating the elements and nodes of the surviving material by supplying the rebuilt smooth contour which is the final fracture surface to an automatic mesh generator as the boundary from which the new mesh is constructed.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate LABERGERE's teachings of rebuilding a smoothed crack contour as the boundary from which a new mesh will be generated using node groups with BROKKEN-KOMORI’s method of finite element simulation of the blanking process using discrete crack propagation. The reason for doing it would have been to obtain a mesh along the crack whose elements sizes are not dictated by jagged geometry. As expressed by LABERGERE “In order to coarsen the mesh along the crack lips, a smoothed representation of the crack has to be used otherwise the size of the smallest curve on the contour may impose the smallest element size.” (Pg. 53).
Regarding Claim 4, BROKKEN and KOMORI do not explicitly teach but LABERGERE teaches
The shearing process simulation method of claim 1, wherein a node located in the fracture surface is recognized as a fracture surface node and the fracture surface node and a node included in the first group are determined as remaining nodes.
“The deletion of the fully damaged elements creates new boundaries which have an unrealistic saw tooth wave shape.”. (Pg. 53).
“Prior to the use of an automatic mesh generator, contour lines must be discretized with respect to the prescribed size distribution provided by the geometrical and physical error indicators introduced before. During the remeshing process, some vertices of the geometry must be kept and therefore these singular points on the contours must be identified.”. (Pg. 53).
“New boundaries are then defined with respect to a new mesh size based on the error indicators … A new quadrangular mesh (ℳiþ1) is generated.”. (Pg. 55).
This shows that removal of the fully damaged elements leaves a defined population of surviving nodes, that nodes situated along the resulting crack contour are identified as the nodes defining that boundary, and that those contour nodes together with the nodes of the retained body constitute the set from which the new mesh of the remaining material is generated.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over “Numerical modelling of ductile fracture in blanking” by BROKKEN et al. [herein “BROKKEN”] (1999), in view of “Simulation of stationary crack during blanking using node separation method” by KOMORI et al. [herein “KOMORI”] (2014), and further in view of “Improved Laplacian Smoothing of Noisy Surface Meshes” by VOLLMER et al. [herein “VOLLMER”] (1999).
Regarding Claim 6, BROKKEN and KOMORI do not explicitly teach but VOLLMER teaches
The shearing process simulation method of claim 1, wherein a first average value is generated by averaging information of the second group element or the second group node,
“… the location of a vertex in a finite element mesh is corrected by calculating a new location as the average of the locations of vertices in the neighborhood on the mesh.”. (Pg. 1-2).
“The Laplacian algorithm is quite simple: the position pi of vertex i is replaced with the average of the positions of adjacent vertices”. (Pg. 2).
“
PNG
media_image3.png
493
467
media_image3.png
Greyscale
”. (Pg. 4).
This shows generating a first average value by taking the positions of the nodes adjacent to a given node and computing their arithmetic mean, with each adjacent node weighted equally, which produces a single averaged value from the information of the neighboring nodes.
a second average value is generated by averaging fracture surface information of a node located in the fracture surface and the first average value,
“This process of averaging can be applied iteratively, until the result is satisfiable.”. (Pg. 2).
“
PNG
media_image3.png
493
467
media_image3.png
Greyscale
”. (Pg. 4).
“
PNG
media_image4.png
368
543
media_image4.png
Greyscale
”. (Pg. 4).
This shows generating a second average value by combining two inputs, the original position of the node being moved and the average value produced by the preceding pass, so that the original surface information is carried into every subsequent averaging step rather than being consumed by the first one.
an Nth average value is generated by averaging the fracture surface information and an N-1th average value,
PNG
media_image4.png
368
543
media_image4.png
Greyscale
”. (Pg. 4).
“This process of averaging can be applied iteratively, until the result is satisfiable.”. (Pg. 2).
This shows generating each successive average value from two inputs, the original surface information held constant across the iterations and the average value produced at the immediately preceding step, so that the same two input recursion continues for every step of the process.
information of the final fracture surface is generated based on the Nth average value, and
the number N is a natural number greater than or equal to 3.
“… the location of a vertex in a finite element mesh is corrected by calculating a new location as the average of the locations of vertices in the neighborhood on the mesh.”. (Pg. 1).
“This process of averaging can be applied iteratively, until the result is satisfiable.”. (Pg. 2).
This shows that the averaged value produced at the final iteration establishes the corrected location of each node, so that the surface defined by those nodes is the product of the last average value in the sequence.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate VOLLMER’s teaching of iteratively recombining the original surface information with the preceding average value with the BROKKEN-KOMORI’s method of finite element simulation of the blanking process using discrete crack propagation. The reason for doing so would have been to prevent the repeated averaging from progressively drawing the surface away from its original geometry, a defect that arises when each pass consumes only the result of the pass before it. As expressed by VOLLMER, plain repeated averaging causes the surface to shrink, and the correction is applied so that “… presents a technique for smoothing polygonal surface meshes that avoids the well-known problem of deformation and shrinkage caused by many smoothing methods.”. (ABSTRACT).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over “Numerical modelling of ductile fracture in blanking” by BROKKEN et al. [herein “BROKKEN”] (1999), in view of “Simulation of stationary crack during blanking using node separation method” by KOMORI et al. [herein “KOMORI”] (2014), and further in view of “AN ANGLE-BASED APPROACH TO TWO-DIMENSIONAL MESH SMOOTHING” by ZHOU et al. [herein “ZHOU”] (2000).
Regarding Claim 7, BROKKEN and KOMORI do not explicitly teach but ZHOU teaches
The shearing process simulation method of claim 1, wherein the average value is calculated using a node averaging method in which an equal tensile force is applied to all edges defined by the second group node.
“Laplacian smoothing is the most commonly used and straightforward method for mesh smoothing. It simply moves each node to the centroid of the polygon formed by its adjacent nodes.”. (Pg. 2).
“In Laplacian smoothing we can consider a mesh as a spring system, as shown in Figure 1. Each edge connecting the central node with its neighboring node can be seen as a linear spring with an initial length of zero.”. (Pg. 2).
“When the central node is located exactly at the geometric center of the polygon, the spring forces are balanced out and the spring system is in equilibrium.”. (Pg. 2).
“By minimizing this cost function we can obtain the same results as by Laplacian smoothing.”. (Pg. 2).
This shows calculating the average value by treating every edge connected to a node as a spring of identical zero rest length, so that an equal tensile force acts align each of those edges. The node comes to rest at the position where those forces balance, which is the centroid of the adjacent nodes. Applying equal tensile force to all edges defined by a node therefore produces the same result as averaging the positions of the adjacent nodes.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate ZHOU’s teaching of the equal tension spring formulation of node averaging with the BROKKEN-KOMORI’s method of finite element simulation of the blanking process using discrete crack propagation. The reason for doing so would have been to obtain the smoothed node positions by the force equilibrium rather than by direct computation of the average, which yields the same node positions. As expressed by ZHOU, “By minimizing this cost function we can obtain the same results as by Laplacian smoothing.”. (Pg. 2).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over “Numerical simulation of continuous damage and fracture in metal-forming processes with 2D mesh adaptive methodology” by LABERGERE et al. [herein “LABERGERE”] (2014), in view of “AN ANGLE-BASED APPROACH TO TWO-DIMENSIONAL MESH SMOOTHING” by ZHOU et al. [herein “ZHOU”] (2000).
Regarding Claim 10, LABERGERE teaches
A shearing process simulation method comprising:
a first step in which by a finite element mesh system for a material, the material is divided into a finite element and a node;
“The initial geometry of the part is provided by a surface mesh …”. (Pg. 53).
“The sheet is discretized with quadrangular bilinear axisymmetric elements CAX4R from ABAQUS element library.”. (Pg. 58).
This shows discretizing the raw sheet material into a finite element mesh system composed of elements and nodes before the shearing analysis begins.
a second step in which in a shearing simulation process, element strength degrading algorithm and a shearing point prediction function of ductile fracture theory are used to determine a shearing point, or a shearing boundary area that is an element strength degraded area in a raw material is generated so that the entire forming load is sharply degraded;
“The strong coupling between the thermomechanical behavior and the ductile damage leads to an induced softening which generates inevitably mesh-dependent numerical solutions of the initial and boundary value problems (IBVP). In that case, the plastic flow with damage localizes inside narrow (shear) bands …”. (Pg. 49).
“Macroscopic crack modeling is obtained by an element removal technique associated with a critical damage criterion.”. (Pg. 53).
This shows generating a degraded region within the raw material, in which accumulated ductile damage softens the elements and the deformation localizes into a narrow shear band, with a critical damage criterion governing where the material gives way.
a third step in which a deleting target area is determined based on the shearing boundary, and a free node that is a deleting target included in the deleting target area is generated;
“The element is removed when the damage value at all integration points exceeds a critical value Dc ¼ 0:99.”. (Pg. 53).
“… a problem which is solved by elimination of the all elements (damaged and not damaged) linked to the node.”. (Pg. 53).
This shows determining the region of elements to be removed on the basis of accumulated damage along the shear band, and identifying the nodes belonging to that region as the nodes subject to removal.
a fifth step in which a state variable value is assigned to the free node as a nodal value of a non-deletion node close to each free node, and the state variable value is assigned to the finite element defined by the free node; and
“The transfer of the state variables located at the integration points is based on diffuse interpolation as presented in Section 3.1. It is important to note that a visibility criterion has been added to the diffuse approximation so that no line connecting an evaluation point and a point inside the support of interpolation can intersect the free boundaries of the part. As an example, nodes located on different sides of the crack lips cannot belong to the same support of interpolation. Nodal variables (displacements, velocities, temperatures) transfer is based on a classical FEM shape function interpolation.”. (Pg. 55).
This shows assigning to each node a state variable value drawn from the surviving nodes in its vicinity and then assigning state variable values within each element from the values at the node defining it.
a sixth step in which a numerical preform or billet sheared in the shearing simulation is formed, and a re-meshing is performed with respect to a mesh containing the degenerate finite element of the numerical preform or billet and thus a strength degraded finite element collected in the shearing boundary is deleted, and a flawless mesh is generated in terms of finite element analysis,
“
PNG
media_image5.png
965
254
media_image5.png
Greyscale
”. (Pg. 52 Fig. 4).“New boundaries are then defined with respect to a new mesh size based on the error indicators … A new quadrangular mesh (ℳiþ1) is generated.”. (Pg. 55).
This shows removing damaged elements accumulated along the shear band and generating a new, analysis valid mesh of the remaining material from the rebuilt boundary.
LABERGERE does not explicitly teach but ZHOU teaches
a fourth step in which a constant tensile force is applied to all line segments connected to each other by the free node, and an unbalance or resistance force of the material is reduced by placing the free node at the appropriate position or a node smoothing method is applied, the free node is located in a shearing boundary, and a mesh containing a degenerate finite element is regenerated;
“In Laplacian smoothing we can consider a mesh as a spring system, as shown in Figure 1. Each edge connecting the central node with its neighboring node can be seen as a linear spring with an initial length of zero.”. (Pg. 2).
“When the central node is located exactly at the geometric center of the polygon, the spring forces are balanced out and the spring system is in equilibrium.”. (Pg. 2).
This shows applying an identical tensile force along every edge connected to a node and relocating that node to the position at which those forces balance, which reduces the unbalanced force acting on it.
wherein through the first step to the sixth step, a numerical preform or billet that is able to be used for engineering analysis of a consecutive metal forming process immediately after the shearing process is obtained.
“Step no 6: Field variables are transferred from mesh (ℳi) to the newly created mesh (ℳiþ1). Step no 7: A new ABAQUS input file for the analysis is prepared for a new loading sequence and the analysis is restarted from step 1.”. (Pg. 55).
This recitation of the first through sixth steps is addressed in the mappings set forth above. This shows that the mesh regenerated after removal of the damaged elements, carrying the field of variables transferred into it, it is prepared directly as the input for the next analysis and the computation resumes on that mesh without intervening repair.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate ZHOU’s teaching of the equal tension spring formulation of node averaging with the LABERGERE’s method of simulating ductile fracture in the metal forming with adaptive remeshing. The reason for doing so would have been to reposition nodes left along the jagged boundary created by the removal of the damaged elements, so that those nodes are carried to balance positions and results in meshes that are suitable for analysis. As expressed by ZHOU, “Laplacian smoothing is the most commonly used and straightforward method for mesh smoothing.”. (Pg. 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20150039273 A1 teaches systems and methods of conducting a time-marching simulation of manufacturing a sheet metal part. The scheme includes creating a set of surrogate lancing route nodes by duplicating nodal coordinates of the existed nodes located along the lancing route. Nodal constraints to initially link together the existed nodes and the corresponding surrogate nodes are then created.
US 5506947 A teaches a system and method for smoothing a curve or a surface without reducing the curve length or the surface area. More specifically, the invention relates to the field of smoothing curves or surfaces in computer graphics and image processing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NARCISO EDUARDO MONTES whose telephone number is (571)272-5773. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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.
/N.E.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights