Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 1-20 are currently presented for Examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/7/2024 and 12/02/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claims have numerous issues with antecedent basis. The Examiner suggests amending the claims such that the first recitation of each distinct element uses articles such as “a”/”an”, later recitations referring back to the same distinct element uses articles such as “the”/”said”, to use disambiguating modifiers (e.g., first, second, etc.) when there are multiple distinct elements with the same base term, and that the use of modifiers for each distinct element is kept consistent. Claim 8 recites “the user provided desired maximum load” in its limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim introduces “user-provided desired load magnitude” not a “user-provided desired maximum load” previously.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8-10, 12-13, 15-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eom et al. (PUB NO: US20220067240A1 in view of TANAKA et al. (PUB NO: JP2004280543A) and further in view of Turvey et al. (PUB NO: US20120000924A1)
Regarding claim 1
Eom teaches a method comprising: obtaining a design space for a modeled object and one or more boundary conditions for numerical simulation (see para 56 and fig 1C-A design space for a modeled object, one or more design criteria for the modeled object, and one or more boundary conditions for numerical simulation (during generative design) are obtained 180, e.g., by CAD program(s) 116.)
that employs a linear analysis, (See para 38-Further, the numerical simulation performed by the systems and techniques described in this document can simulate one or more physical properties and can use one or more types of simulation to produce a numerical assessment of physical response (e.g., structural response) of the modeled object. For example, finite element analysis (FEA), including linear static FEA, finite difference method(s), and material point method(s) can be used.)
wherein the modeled object corresponds to a physical structure and comprises a preserve geometry, (see para 56-Thus, in addition to the modeled object corresponding to a physical structure, the modeled object also includes at least one surface of at least a portion of geometry to be preserved.)
and wherein the one or more boundary conditions comprise a location on the preserve geometry at which a load is to be applied;(see para 46-The boundary conditions for numerical simulation are specified in relation to respective surfaces of these preserve bodies 133. Thus, one or more forces to be applied as part of the numerical simulation can be specified in relation to an inner surface 133A of one of the preserve bodies 133, and a zero displacement constraint can be specified in relation to respective bottom surfaces 133B of the remaining four preserve bodies 133. see para 56- and the one or more obtained 180 boundary conditions are specified in relation to the at least one surface. For example, a loading condition can be specified in relation to surface 133A, and a displacement constraint can be specified in relation to surfaces 133B)
boundary conditions include a specified direction for the load at the location; (see para 15-Forces and moments can be applied on the voxelized mesh such that the total load specified by the user, in any given direction, is respected. Various types of structural loads can be applied on any suitable type of surface of a 3D object that has been discretized into a voxel mesh representation, with the application occurring to the voxel mesh during numerical simulation of the structural response of the object. See para 45- In addition, the user 160 (or another party) can specify one or more boundary conditions for numerical simulation, e.g., a loading condition and a displacement constraint for use in various types of physics simulations, used during generative design processes. See para 63- Thus, forces and moments can be applied on the voxelized mesh such that the total load specified by the user, in any given direction, is respected. See table 2- F and M denote force and moment, respectively; and x, y and z represent the Cartesian directions.)
iteratively modifying a three dimensional shape of the modeled object in the design space in accordance with a physical response of the modeled object determined by the numerical simulation performed using either the specified direction or the at least one direction for the load at the location, (see para 58 and fig 1C-Thus, the one or more design criteria are used in the process of iteratively modifying 190, e.g., by CAD program(s) 116, the three dimensional shape of the modeled object in the design space to generatively design the physical structure. This includes modifying both a geometry of the three dimensional shape and a topology of the three dimensional shape in the design space in accordance with the one or more design criteria and a physical response of the modeled object determined by the numerical simulation. See para 63- Thus, forces and moments can be applied on the voxelized mesh such that the total load specified by the user, in any given direction, is respected. See table 2- F and M denote force and moment, respectively; and x, y and z represent the Cartesian directions. See para 75- The at least one displacement constraint is specified 210 as a single point displacement constraint applied to each of the nodes in the subset of nodes using the local coordinate system to exactly enforce node displacements in one or more directions during the numerical simulation of the physical response of the modeled object.)
presenting to a user the two or more versions of the modeled object having different shapes produced by the iteratively modifying of the three dimensional shape, (See para 66- In some implementations, two or more 3D models resulting from the generative design process can be presented to the user along with a trade-off analysis of design complexity versus cost of manufacturing (or any of a variety of other quantities of interest). The trade-off analysis can assist a user 160 in deciding whether to accept or reject one or more 3D models among the presented 3D models.)
receiving a user selection of one of the two or more versions of the modeled object,( See para 66- In some implementations, the result of generative design processing is presented to the user, e.g., in UI 122 on display device 120, along with an option to accept or reject the design. In some implementations, the user can select from the final design or any of a variety of previous iterations for each design study.)
wherein the two or more versions are useable in manufacturing the physical structure using one or more computer-controlled manufacturing systems.(see para 67 and fig 1C- Once a design in not rejected, the process of FIG. 1C can provide 195, e.g., by CAD program(s) 116, the 3D model of the object with the generatively designed shape and topology (potentially after some post-processing of the generative design output, such as conversion into a watertight B-Rep 3D model) for use in manufacturing of the physical structure of the design. In some implementations, the providing 195 involves generating 195A, e.g., by CAD program(s) 116, toolpath specifications for the computer-controlled manufacturing system(s) using the 3D model, and manufacturing 195B, e.g., by CAD program(s) 116, at least a portion of the physical structure corresponding to the object with the computer-controlled manufacturing system(s) using the toolpath specifications generated for the computer-controlled manufacturing system(s).)
Eom does not teach checking whether the one or more boundary conditions include a specified direction for the load at the location; assigning at least one direction for the load at the location when no specified direction is included in the one or more boundary conditions and wherein the iterative modification comprises determining a respective maximum sustainable load for each of two or more versions of the modified three dimensional shape, wherein the maximum sustainable load is determined based on a predefined, not-user-specified load magnitude for the load at the location; including presenting the respective maximum sustainable load for each of the two or more versions of the modeled object
In the related field of invention, TANAKA teaches checking whether the one or more boundary conditions include a specified direction for the load at the location; assigning at least one direction for the load at the location when no specified direction is included in the one or more boundary conditions;(see para 25- In step 24, it is determined whether the load direction is defined by the line. If the load direction is defined by the line, the process proceeds to step 25 (Yes), and the direction vector is normalized to obtain a unit vector. On the other hand, if the load condition is not defined by the line, the load direction is regarded as a normal vector perpendicular to the region, and the process proceeds to step 26 (No).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of computer aided design of physical structures as disclosed by Eom to include checking whether the one or more boundary conditions include a specified direction for the load at the location; assigning at least one direction for the load at the location when no specified direction is included in the one or more boundary conditions as taught by TANAKA in the system of Eom in order to provide a method for setting structural analysis conditions that facilitates setting of various necessary conditions. (see para 004-006, Tanaka)
The combination of Eom and TANAKA does not teach wherein the iterative modification comprises determining a respective maximum sustainable load for each of two or more versions of the modified three dimensional shape, wherein the maximum sustainable load is determined based on a predefined, not-user-specified load magnitude for the load at the location; presenting the respective maximum sustainable load for each of the two or more versions of the modeled object;
In the related field of invention, Turvey teaches wherein the iterative modification comprises determining a respective maximum sustainable load for each of two or more versions of the modified three dimensional shape, wherein the maximum sustainable load is determined based on a predefined, not-user-specified load magnitude for the load at the location; presenting the respective maximum sustainable load for each of the two or more versions of the modeled object; (See para 31- The FEA of the exemplary containers may be performed using, among other programs, ANSYS® software, namely ANSYS Multiphysics. In performing the analysis, the exemplary container is divided into four quarter sections through two imaginary perpendicular vertical planes, the buckling load of the container may be calculated through the following steps: (1) for each quarter section of the container, calculating the stress S10N(MPa) developed in the container when an arbitrary load of 10 N is applied to the top quarter rim of the container; (2) assuming a linear relationship between the load and stress, calculating the maximum load of the quarter section under maximum stress Smax, i.e. the yield strength of the container material (for polypropylene Smax=33 MPa); (3) multiply the maximum load of the quarter section by four to obtain the maximum load of the container Lmax(lbs).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of computer aided design of physical structures as disclosed by Eom to include wherein the iterative modification comprises determining a respective maximum sustainable load for each of two or more versions of the modified three dimensional shape, wherein the maximum sustainable load is determined based on a predefined, not-user-specified load magnitude for the load at the location; presenting the respective maximum sustainable load for each of the two or more versions of the modeled object as taught by Turvey in the system of Eom and TANAKA in order to use plastic that prevents buckling and increases the strength of the container front and rear walls. This shifting of the load more evenly balances the load force around the container and increases the overall buckling force of the entire container. (see para 006-008, Turvey)
Regarding claim 13
Eom teaches a system comprising: a non-transitory storage medium having instructions of a computer aided design program stored thereon; and one or more data processing apparatus configured to run the instructions of the computer aided design program to cause the one or more data processing apparatus to perform operations: (see para 0007- In general, one or more aspects of the subject matter described in this specification can be embodied in one or more methods (and also one or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums tangibly encoding a computer program operable to cause data processing apparatus to perform operations)
The rest of the limitation of claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1, as they share the same elements.
Regarding claim 18
Eom teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium encoding a program operable to cause one or more data processing apparatus to perform operations: (see para 0007- In general, one or more aspects of the subject matter described in this specification can be embodied in one or more methods (and also one or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums tangibly encoding a computer program operable to cause data processing apparatus to perform operations)
The rest of the limitation of claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1, as they share the same elements.
Regarding claim 3
The combination of Eom, TANAKA and Turvey teaches the method according to claim 1. Eom further teaches wherein the location on the preserve geometry is a first location, wherein obtaining the one or more boundary conditions for the numerical simulation comprises obtaining a second location on the preserve geometry at which a load is applied, (see para 44-46- The boundary conditions for numerical simulation are specified in relation to respective surfaces of these preserve bodies 133. Thus, one or more forces to be applied as part of the numerical simulation can be specified in relation to an inner surface 133A of one of the preserve bodies 133, and a zero-displacement constraint can be specified in relation to respective bottom surfaces 133B of the remaining four preserve bodies 133. See para 83-84- The centroid of the subset of nodes 265 is point C in FIG. 3B, which represents the centroid of the surface S 255. In FIG. 3B, point C denotes the location of the surface or edge centroid. See table 1-2-vertex, edge, face are location)
wherein a first load magnitude at the first location is different from a second load magnitude at the second location, (see para 93- See para 93- In some implementations, this involves splitting the force unevenly among each vertex based on the orientation of each vertex in each surface voxel with respect to the surface)
wherein the numerical simulation is performed using the direction of the load at the first location and the direction of the load at the second location (see para 58 and fig 1C-Thus, the one or more design criteria are used in the process of iteratively modifying 190, e.g., by CAD program(s) 116, the three dimensional shape of the modeled object in the design space to generatively design the physical structure. This includes modifying both a geometry of the three dimensional shape and a topology of the three dimensional shape in the design space in accordance with the one or more design criteria and a physical response of the modeled object determined by the numerical simulation. See para 63- Thus, forces and moments can be applied on the voxelized mesh such that the total load specified by the user, in any given direction, is respected. See table 2- F and M denote force and moment, respectively; and x, y and z represent the Cartesian directions. See para 75- The at least one displacement constraint is specified 210 as a single point displacement constraint applied to each of the nodes in the subset of nodes using the local coordinate system to exactly enforce node displacements in one or more directions during the numerical simulation of the physical response of the modeled object.)
and wherein the three-dimensional shape of the modeled object is iteratively modified in accordance with a relative difference between the first load magnitude at the first location and the second load magnitude at the second location. (see para 58 and fig 1C-Thus, the one or more design criteria are used in the process of iteratively modifying 190, e.g., by CAD program(s) 116, the three dimensional shape of the modeled object in the design space to generatively design the physical structure. This includes modifying both a geometry of the three dimensional shape and a topology of the three dimensional shape in the design space in accordance with the one or more design criteria and a physical response of the modeled object determined by the numerical simulation. See para 63- Thus, forces and moments can be applied on the voxelized mesh such that the total load specified by the user, in any given direction, is respected. See table 2- F and M denote force and moment, respectively; and x, y and z represent the Cartesian directions. See para 86-Applying the load at a single point that is virtually connected (using the interpolation element) to the voxel mesh nodes identified as corresponding to the surface (against which the boundary condition is specified) is different than just dividing the applied force up into pieces. This latter division of the applied force will not be as accurate as defining the total magnitude of force applied at the centroid of the identified nodes, and then using the interpolation element to effect the distribution of the force. The links between the centroid and the nodes (the interpolation element) will distribute the applied load to the surface accurately and fairly, because the solver will internally distribute the loads in a way that is much more equitable using the weighted average calculations underlying the interpolation constraint element. See para 93- In some implementations, this involves splitting the force unevenly among each vertex based on the orientation of each vertex in each surface voxel with respect to the surface)
Eom does not teach wherein at least one direction for the load at the second location is assigned and wherein the maximum sustainable load is determined for each of the first and second locations.
In the related field of invention, TANAKA teaches wherein at least one direction for the load at the second location is assigned, (See para 19- As the load value, the magnitude of the force acting on one point in the case of a concentrated load, and the magnitude of the force acting per unit area in the case of a uniformly distributed load are used. See para 32- After a color corresponding to a desired load value is selected from the color palette, a predetermined color of a three-dimensional model partitioned by a line or a line is used. see para 43-44- That is, as shown in FIG. 16, when a color is applied to one surface (F1) of the three-dimensional model, the color is divided into regions partitioned by the color. In step 3, new shape numbers (F1.1 and F1.2) are assigned to the divided areas, and the shape definition is additionally registered and updated in the shape definition setting table. See para 55- In step 24, it is determined whether the load direction is defined by the line. If the load direction is defined by the line, the process proceeds to step 25 (Yes), and the direction vector is normalized to obtain a unit vector. On the other hand, if the load condition is not defined by the line, the load direction is regarded as a normal vector perpendicular to the region, and the process proceeds to step 26 (No).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of computer aided design of physical structures as disclosed by Eom to include wherein at least one direction for the load at the second location is assigned as taught by TANAKA in the system of Eom in order to provide a method for setting structural analysis conditions that facilitates setting of various necessary conditions. (see para 004-006, Tanaka)
The combination of Eom and TANAKA does not teach wherein the maximum sustainable load is determined for each of the first and second locations.
In the related field of invention, Turvey teaches wherein the maximum sustainable load is determined for each of the first and second locations, (See para 31- The FEA of the exemplary containers may be performed using, among other programs, ANSYS® software, namely ANSYS Multiphysics. In performing the analysis, the exemplary container is divided into four quarter sections through two imaginary perpendicular vertical planes, the buckling load of the container may be calculated through the following steps: (1) for each quarter section of the container, calculating the stress S10N(MPa) developed in the container when an arbitrary load of 10 N is applied to the top quarter rim of the container; (2) assuming a linear relationship between the load and stress, calculating the maximum load of the quarter section under maximum stress Smax, i.e. the yield strength of the container material (for polypropylene Smax=33 MPa); (3) multiply the maximum load of the quarter section by four to obtain the maximum load of the container Lmax(lbs).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of computer aided design of physical structures as disclosed by Eom to include wherein the maximum sustainable load is determined for each of the first and second locations as taught by Turvey in the system of Eom and TANAKA in order to use plastic that prevents buckling and increases the strength of the container front and rear walls. This shifting of the load more evenly balances the load force around the container and increases the overall buckling force of the entire container. (see para 006-008, Turvey)
Regarding claim 4
The combination of Eom, TANAKA and Turvey teaches the method according to claim 1. Eom further teaches wherein the location on the preserve geometry is a first location, wherein obtaining the one or more boundary conditions for the numerical simulation comprises obtaining a second location on the preserve geometry at which a load is applied, wherein the first location and the second location are i) on separate preserve bodies part of the preserve geometry or ii) on separate surface of a single preserve body part of the preserve geometry, (see para 44-46- The boundary conditions for numerical simulation are specified in relation to respective surfaces of these preserve bodies 133. Thus, one or more forces to be applied as part of the numerical simulation can be specified in relation to an inner surface 133A of one of the preserve bodies 133, and a zero displacement constraint can be specified in relation to respective bottom surfaces 133B of the remaining four preserve bodies 133. See para 83-84- The centroid of the subset of nodes 265 is point C in FIG. 3B, which represents the centroid of the surface S 255. In FIG. 3B, point C denotes the location of the surface or edge centroid. See table 1-2-vertex, edge, face are location)and
obtaining a relative difference between a first load magnitude of the load applied at the first location and a second load magnitude of the load applied at the second location, (See para 86-Applying the load at a single point that is virtually connected (using the interpolation element) to the voxel mesh nodes identified as corresponding to the surface (against which the boundary condition is specified) is different than just dividing the applied force up into pieces. This latter division of the applied force will not be as accurate as defining the total magnitude of force applied at the centroid of the identified nodes, and then using the interpolation element to effect the distribution of the force. The links between the centroid and the nodes (the interpolation element) will distribute the applied load to the surface accurately and fairly, because the solver will internally distribute the loads in a way that is much more equitable using the weighted average calculations underlying the interpolation constraint element. See para 93- In some implementations, this involves splitting the force unevenly among each vertex based on the orientation of each vertex in each surface voxel with respect to the surface in accordance with Equation (2).)
wherein the three dimensional shape of the modeled object is iteratively modified in accordance with the relative difference between the first load magnitude at the first location and the second load magnitude at the second location, and wherein the relative difference is used to distribute the predefined, not-user specified load magnitude for the load at the first and second locations. (. see para 58 and fig 1C-Thus, the one or more design criteria are used in the process of iteratively modifying 190, e.g., by CAD program(s) 116, the three dimensional shape of the modeled object in the design space to generatively design the physical structure. This includes modifying both a geometry of the three dimensional shape and a topology of the three dimensional shape in the design space in accordance with the one or more design criteria and a physical response of the modeled object determined by the numerical simulation. See para 63- Thus, forces and moments can be applied on the voxelized mesh such that the total load specified by the user, in any given direction, is respected. See table 2- F and M denote force and moment, respectively; and x, y and z represent the Cartesian directions. See para 86-Applying the load at a single point that is virtually connected (using the interpolation element) to the voxel mesh nodes identified as corresponding to the surface (against which the boundary condition is specified) is different than just dividing the applied force up into pieces. This latter division of the applied force will not be as accurate as defining the total magnitude of force applied at the centroid of the identified nodes, and then using the interpolation element to effect the distribution of the force. The links between the centroid and the nodes (the interpolation element) will distribute the applied load to the surface accurately and fairly, because the solver will internally distribute the loads in a way that is much more equitable using the weighted average calculations underlying the interpolation constraint element. See para 93- In some implementations, this involves splitting the force unevenly among each vertex based on the orientation of each vertex in each surface voxel with respect to the surface. In any case, once the pressure load is divided into pieces for application to the nodes of the surface voxels, the total applied load may not match the pressure load specified by the user, i.e., the total load (given by the user) in any given direction may not be respected.)
Regarding claim 5
The combination of Eom, TANAKA and Turvey teaches the method according to claim 1. Eom does not teach wherein determining the respective maximum sustainable load for each of the two or more versions of the modified three dimensional shape comprises, for each version: computing, for a specified material, a ratio between an allowable stress limit for the version of the three dimensional shape of the modeled object and a maximum stress experienced by the modeled object, wherein the allowable stress limit and the maximum stress are determined for the predefined, not-user-specified load magnitude applied at the location on the preserve geometry; and applying the ratio to the predefined, not-user specified load magnitude to determine the maximum sustainable load by the modeled object at the location where load is applied.
In the related field of invention, Turvey teaches wherein determining the respective maximum sustainable load for each of the two or more versions of the modified three dimensional shape comprises, for each version: computing, for a specified material, a ratio between an allowable stress limit for the version of the three dimensional shape of the modeled object and a maximum stress experienced by the modeled object, wherein the allowable stress limit and the maximum stress are determined for the predefined, not-user-specified load magnitude applied at the location on the preserve geometry; and applying the ratio to the predefined, not-user specified load magnitude to determine the maximum sustainable load by the modeled object at the location where load is applied. (See para 31- The FEA of the exemplary containers may be performed using, among other programs, ANSYS® software, namely ANSYS Multiphysics. In performing the analysis, the exemplary container is divided into four quarter sections through two imaginary perpendicular vertical planes, the buckling load of the container may be calculated through the following steps: (1) for each quarter section of the container, calculating the stress S10N(MPa) developed in the container when an arbitrary load of 10 N is applied to the top quarter rim of the container; (2) assuming a linear relationship between the load and stress, calculating the maximum load of the quarter section under maximum stress Smax, i.e. the yield strength of the container material (for polypropylene Smax=33 MPa); (3) multiply the maximum load of the quarter section by four to obtain the maximum load of the container Lmax(lbs).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of computer aided design of physical structures as disclosed by Eom to include wherein determining the respective maximum sustainable load for each of the two or more versions of the modified three dimensional shape comprises, for each version: computing, for a specified material, a ratio between an allowable stress limit for the version of the three dimensional shape of the modeled object and a maximum stress experienced by the modeled object, wherein the allowable stress limit and the maximum stress are determined for the predefined, not-user-specified load magnitude applied at the location on the preserve geometry; and applying the ratio to the predefined, not-user specified load magnitude to determine the maximum sustainable load by the modeled object at the location where load is applied as taught by Turvey in the system of Eom and TANAKA in order to use plastic that prevents buckling and increases the strength of the container front and rear walls. This shifting of the load more evenly balances the load force around the container and increases the overall buckling force of the entire container. (see para 006-008, Turvey)
Regarding claim 8
The combination of Eom, TANAKA and Turvey teaches the method according to claim 1. Eom further teaches wherein obtaining the one or more boundary conditions comprises obtaining a user-provided desired load magnitude for the numerical simulation, (see para 45- In addition, the user 160 (or another party) can specify one or more boundary conditions for numerical simulation, e.g., a loading condition and a displacement constraint for use in various types of physics simulations, used during generative design processes. See para 85-86- Returning to FIG. 3A, the distribution of a total loading value of at least one loading condition (to the respective nodes) is specified 315 as application of the force or moment load to the reference node to cause the distribution of the total loading (during determination of the physical response) through the interpolation constraint element. Total magnitude of force applied at the centroid of the identified node)
presenting to the user an indication of a difference between a maximum sustainable load for at least one of the two or more versions of the modeled object and the user-provided desired maximum load.(see para 66- In some implementations, the result of generative design processing is presented to the user, e.g., in UI 122 on display device 120, along with an option to accept or reject the design. In some implementations, the user can select from the final design or any of a variety of previous iterations for each design study. In some implementations, two or more 3D models resulting from the generative design process can be presented to the user along with a trade-off analysis of design complexity versus cost of manufacturing (or any of a variety of other quantities of interest). The trade-off analysis can assist a user 160 in deciding whether to accept or reject one or more 3D models among the presented 3D models. See para 101-102- In some implementations, this involves splitting the force unevenly among each vertex based on the position of each vertex in each surface voxel with respect to the center of the bearing in the bearing coordinate system. Residual force can be computed 520, where the residual force is a difference between (i) the total loading value on the at least one surface from the bearing load (e.g., Fy) and (ii) an approximate load on the at least one surface from totaling the force vectors for the voxels that correspond to the at least one surface)
Examiner note: Turvey teaches maximum sustainable load of the modeled object.
Regarding claim 9
The combination of Eom, TANAKA and Turvey teaches the method according to claim 1. Eom further teaches load from one or more directions in a Cartesian coordinate system defined for a surface of the preserve geometry including the location at which the load is applied.(see para 0046-hus, one or more forces to be applied as part of the numerical simulation can be specified in relation to an inner surface 133A of one of the preserve bodies 133. see para 73--Returning to FIG. 2A, a local coordinate system is found 205, e.g., by CAD program(s) 116, for the surface of the preserve geometry in relation to which the at least one displacement constraint is specified. The local coordinate system is a set of axes associated with each node in the model. As noted above, the local coordinate system can be a Cartesian, cylindrical or normal to the surface (frictionless) coordinate system. The coordinate system is local to the surface of the preserve geometry specified by the user. see para 79-In Table 2, F and M denote force and moment, respectively; and x, y and z represent the Cartesian directions.)
Eom does not teach wherein assigning the at least one direction for the load at the location comprises: selecting the least one direction for the load.
However, TANAKA teaches wherein assigning the at least one direction for the load at the location comprises: selecting the least one direction for the load. (See para 55-In step 24, it is determined whether the load direction is defined by the line. If the load direction is defined by the line, the process proceeds to step 25 (Yes), and the direction vector is normalized to obtain a unit vector. On the other hand, if the load condition is not defined by the line, the load direction is regarded as a normal vector perpendicular to the region, and the process proceeds to step 26 (No).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of computer aided design of physical structures as disclosed by Eom to include wherein assigning the at least one direction for the load at the location comprises: selecting the least one direction for the load as taught by TANAKA in the system of Eom in order to provide a method for setting structural analysis conditions that facilitates setting of various necessary conditions. (see para 004-006, Tanaka)
Regarding claim 10
The combination of Eom, TANAKA and Turvey teaches the method according to claim 1. Eom further teaches wherein assigning the at least one direction for the load at the location when no specified direction is included in the one or more boundary conditions comprises: identifying a surface of at least a portion of the preserve geometry that is in contact with another surface of another part in an assembly of parts including the preserve geometry;(see para 005 The set of input solids can include “preserve bodies”, which should always be present in the design and which represent interfaces to other parts or locations on which boundary conditions should be applied (for example mechanical loads and constraints). See para 0046-Thus, one or more forces to be applied as part of the numerical simulation can be specified in relation to an inner surface 133A of one of the preserve bodies 133, and a zero displacement constraint can be specified in relation to respective bottom surfaces 133B of the remaining four preserve bodies 133.))
identifying the location at the surface of at least the portion of the preserve geometry as a contact location between at least the portion of the preserve geometry and the other surface of the other part; (see para 45-46-assemblies with linear contact can be supported by the CAD software. Thus, one or more forces to be applied as part of the numerical simulation can be specified in relation to an inner surface 133A of one of the preserve bodies 133, and a zero displacement constraint can be specified in relation to respective bottom surfaces 133B of the remaining four preserve bodies 133. See para 83-84- the centroid of the subset of nodes 265 is point C in FIG. 3B, which represents the centroid of the surface S 255. This reference node is connected to the nodes 260 on (or near) the surface S by an interpolation constraint element, e.g., in solver program 116A. In FIG. 3B, point C denotes the location of the surface or edge centroid.)and
surface normal of the surface including the identified location (see para 74 and see fig 3B--In general, the surface itself will be used to determine the local coordinate system. For example, a flat surface can define its coordinate system with one of the axes normal to the surface.
Eom does not teach assigning the at least one direction for the load at the identified location as a direction of a surface normal of the surface including the identified location.
However, TANAKA teaches assigning the at least one direction for the load at the identified location as a direction of a surface normal of the surface including the identified location. (See para 55-In step 24, it is determined whether the load direction is defined by the line. If the load direction is defined by the line, the process proceeds to step 25 (Yes), and the direction vector is normalized to obtain a unit vector. On the other hand, if the load condition is not defined by the line, the load direction is regarded as a normal vector perpendicular to the region, and the process proceeds to step 26 (No).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of computer aided design of physical structures as disclosed by Eom to include assigning the at least one direction for the load at the identified location as a direction of a surface normal of the surface including the identified location as taught by TANAKA in the system of Eom in order to provide a method for setting structural analysis conditions that facilitates setting of various necessary conditions. (see para 004-006, Tanaka)
Regarding claim 12
The combination of Eom, TANAKA and Turvey teaches the method according to claim 1. Eom further teaches generating a toolpath specification for a manufacturing machine using a user selected version of the three dimensional shape; and manufacturing at least a portion of the physical structure, or a mold for the physical structure, with the manufacturing machine using the toolpath specification.(See fig 1C and para 67- In some implementations, the providing 195 involves generating 195A, e.g., by CAD program(s) 116, toolpath specifications for the computer-controlled manufacturing system(s) using the 3D model, and manufacturing 195B, e.g., by CAD program(s) 116, at least a portion of the physical structure corresponding to the object with the computer-controlled manufacturing system(s) using the toolpath specifications generated for the computer-controlled manufacturing system(s).)
Regarding claim 20
The combination of Eom, TANAKA and Turvey teaches the computer-readable medium according to claim 18. Eom further teaches wherein the location on the preserve geometry is a first location, wherein obtaining the one or more boundary conditions for the numerical simulation comprises obtaining a second location on the preserve geometry at which a load is applied, wherein the first location and the second location are i) on separate preserve bodies part of the preserve geometry or ii) on separate surface of a single preserve body part of the preserve geometry, (see para 44-46- The boundary conditions for numerical simulation are specified in relation to respective surfaces of these preserve bodies 133. Thus, one or more forces to be applied as part of the numerical simulation can be specified in relation to an inner surface 133A of one of the preserve bodies 133, and a zero displacement constraint can be specified in relation to respective bottom surfaces 133B of the remaining four preserve bodies 133. See para 83-84- The centroid of the subset of nodes 265 is point C in FIG. 3B, which represents the centroid of the surface S 255. In FIG. 3B, point C denotes the location of the surface or edge centroid. See table 1-2-vertex, edge, face are location)and
obtaining a relative difference between a first load magnitude of the load applied at the first location and a second load magnitude of the load applied at the second location, (See para 86-Applying the load at a single point that is virtually connected (using the interpolation element) to the voxel mesh nodes identified as corresponding to the surface (against which the boundary condition is specified) is different than just dividing the applied force up into pieces. This latter division of the applied force will not be as accurate as defining the total magnitude of force applied at the centroid of the identified nodes, and then using the interpolation element to effect the distribution of the force. The links between the centroid and the nodes (the interpolation element) will distribute the applied load to the surface accurately and fairly, because the solver will internally distribute the loads in a way that is much more equitable using the weighted average calculations underlying the interpolation constraint element. See para 93- In some implementations, this involves splitting the force unevenly among each vertex based on the orientation of each vertex in each surface voxel with respect to the surface in accordance with Equation (2).)
wherein the three dimensional shape of the modeled object is iteratively modified in accordance with the relative difference between the first load magnitude at the first location and the second load magnitude at the second location, and wherein the relative difference between the first load magnitude and the second load magnitude is used to distribute the arbitrary load magnitude for the load at the first and second location. (See para 43- . In general, the input design space 131 can be automatically generated or be user specified, see para 58 and fig 1C-Thus, the one or more design criteria are used in the process of iteratively modifying 190, e.g., by CAD program(s) 116, the three dimensional shape of the modeled object in the design space to generatively design the physical structure. This includes modifying both a geometry of the three dimensional shape and a topology of the three dimensional shape in the design space in accordance with the one or more design criteria and a physical response of the modeled object determined by the numerical simulation. See para 63- Thus, forces and moments can be applied on the voxelized mesh such that the total load specified by the user, in any given direction, is respected. See table 2- F and M denote force and moment, respectively; and x, y and z represent the Cartesian directions. See para 86-Applying the load at a single point that is virtually connected (using the interpolation element) to the voxel mesh nodes identified as corresponding to the surface (against which the boundary condition is specified) is different than just dividing the applied force up into pieces. This latter division of the applied force will not be as accurate as defining the total magnitude of force applied at the centroid of the identified nodes, and then using the interpolation element to effect the distribution of the force. The links between the centroid and the nodes (the interpolation element) will distribute the applied load to the surface accurately and fairly, because the solver will internally distribute the loads in a way that is much more equitable using the weighted average calculations underlying the interpolation constraint element. See para 93- In some implementations, this involves splitting the force unevenly among each vertex based on the orientation of each vertex in each surface voxel with respect to the surface. In any case, once the pressure load is divided into pieces for application to the nodes of the surface voxels, the total applied load may not match the pressure load specified by the user, i.e., the total load (given by the user) in any given direction may not be respected. See also para 101)
Eom does not teach wherein the of the maximum sustainable load for each of the two or more versions is determined based on an arbitrary load magnitude.
However, Turvey teaches wherein the of the maximum sustainable load for each of the two or more versions is determined based on an arbitrary load magnitude. (See para 31- The FEA of the exemplary containers may be performed using, among other programs, ANSYS® software, namely ANSYS Multiphysics. In performing the analysis, the exemplary container is divided into four quarter sections through two imaginary perpendicular vertical planes, the buckling load of the container may be calculated through the following steps: (1) for each quarter section of the container, calculating the stress S10N(MPa) developed in the container when an arbitrary load of 10 N is applied to the top quarter rim of the container; (2) assuming a linear relationship between the load and stress, calculating the maximum load of the quarter section under maximum stress Smax, i.e. the yield strength of the container material (for polypropylene Smax=33 MPa); (3) multiply the maximum load of the quarter section by four to obtain the maximum load of the container Lmax(lbs).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of computer aided design of physical structures as disclosed by Eom to include wherein the of the maximum sustainable load for each of the two or more versions is determined based on an arbitrary load magnitude as taught by Turvey in the system of Eom and TANAKA in order to use plastic that prevents buckling and increases the strength of the container front and rear walls. This shifting of the load more evenly balances the load force around the container and increases the overall buckling force of the entire container. (see para 006-008, Turvey)
Regarding claim 15
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 3, as they share the same elements.
Regarding claim 16
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 4, as they share the same elements.
Regarding claim 17
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 5, as they share the same elements.
Claim(s) 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eom et al. (PUB NO: US20220067240A1 in view of TANAKA et al. (PUB NO: JP2004280543A) and further in view of Turvey et al. (PUB NO: US20120000924A1) and further in view of Yu et al. (PUB NO: US20200342067A1) and further in view of Nakhjavani et al. (PUB NO: US20200065429A1)
Regarding claim 2
The combination of Eom, TANAKA and Turvey teaches the method according to claim 1. Eom further teaches wherein the linear analysis is linear stress analysis, (see para 38- Further, the numerical simulation performed by the systems and techniques described in this document can simulate one or more physical properties and can use one or more types of simulation to produce a numerical assessment of physical response (e.g., structural response) of the modeled object. For example, finite element analysis (FEA), including linear static FEA, finite difference method. See para 60- Topology optimization typically leverages Finite Element Analysis (FEA) techniques in order to perform the necessary shape adjustments at each iteration. The different types of constraints that can be used in topology optimization include: volume fraction constraint (sets a limit on the amount of material that can be removed from the model; as the volume fraction is reached, the optimizer would rearrange the material in the model so that the objective can be reached); stress constraint (limits the amount of stress the model can undergo. )
Eom does not teach wherein the iteratively modifying comprises iteratively generating the two or more versions of the three dimensional shape without use of a stress constraint, wherein each version of the two or more versions when associated with a first material is determined to withstand a corresponding first maximum sustainable load that is different from a corresponding second maximum sustainable load that is determined for the same version of the modeled object when associated with a second, different material, and wherein both the first maximum sustainable load and the second maximum sustainable load are determined after a first iteration that produced that version of the three dimensional shape and before a second iteration to modify that version to generate a next version of the three dimensional shape.
However, Turvey teaches wherein each version of the two or more versions when associated with a first material is determined to withstand a corresponding first maximum sustainable load that is different from a corresponding second maximum sustainable load that is determined for the same version of the modeled object when associated with a second, different material, (See para 31- The FEA of the exemplary containers may be performed using, among other programs, ANSYS® software, namely ANSYS Multiphysics. In performing the analysis, the exemplary container is divided into four quarter sections through two imaginary perpendicular vertical planes, the buckling load of the container may be calculated through the following steps: (1) for each quarter section of the container, calculating the stress S10N(MPa) developed in the container when an arbitrary load of 10 N is applied to the top quarter rim of the container; (2) assuming a linear relationship between the load and stress, calculating the maximum load of the quarter section under maximum stress Smax, i.e. the yield strength of the container material (for polypropylene Smax=33 MPa); (3) multiply the maximum load of the quarter section by four to obtain the maximum load of the container Lmax(lbs).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of computer aided design of physical structures as disclosed by Eom to include wherein each version of the two or more versions when associated with a first material is determined to withstand a corresponding first maximum sustainable load that is different from a corresponding second maximum sustainable load that is determined for the same version of the modeled object when associated with a second, different material as taught by Turvey in the system of Eom and TANAKA in order to use plastic that prevents buckling and increases the strength of the container front and rear walls. This shifting of the load more evenly balances the load force around the container and increases the overall buckling force of the entire container. (see para 006-008, Turvey)
The combination does not teach wherein each version of the two or more versions when associated with a first material and second different material.
In the related field of invention, Yu teaches wherein each version of the two or more versions when associated with a first material and second different material; (see para 65- Thus, for example, if there are two selected materials, being A36 steel of SM=250 MPa and brass of SM=135 MPa, along with three selected factors of safety being 3.0 , 2.0 and 1.5)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of computer aided design of physical structures as disclosed by Eom to include wherein each version of the two or more versions when associated with a first material and second different material as taught by Yu in the system of Eom, Turvey and TANAKA in order to use a computer aided design for building physical structures using various manufacturing systems and techniques and thus optimizes a topology for of the physical structure to be manufactured. (see para 004, Yu)
The combination does not teach wherein the iteratively modifying comprises iteratively generating the two or more versions of the three dimensional shape without use of a stress constraint and wherein both the first maximum sustainable load and the second maximum sustainable load are determined after a first iteration that produced that version of the three dimensional shape and before a second iteration to modify that version to generate a next version of the three dimensional shape.
In the related invention, Nakhjavani teaches wherein the iteratively modifying comprises iteratively generating the two or more versions of the three dimensional shape without use of a stress constraint, ( see para 73- Implementation of the stress constraint in the level-set formula may include calculating the stress at each point of the structural design, and then modifying the surface equation. See para 92- FIG. 4B depicts the optimized structural design without applying any of the constraints described above.)
wherein both the first maximum sustainable load and the second maximum sustainable load are determined after a first iteration that produced that version of the three dimensional shape and before a second iteration to modify that version to generate a next version of the three dimensional shape.(see para 315- The performing 506, the finding 508, the determining 510, the redefining 512, the computing 514 and the updating 516 repeat until a check 518 determines that a predefined number of shape modification iterations have been performed or that the generatively designed three dimensional shape of the modeled object in the design space has converged to a stable solution for the one or more design criteria and the one or more in-use load cases. )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of computer aided design of physical structures as disclosed by Eom to include wherein the of the maximum sustainable load for each of the two or more versions is determined based on an arbitrary load magnitude as taught by Nakhjavani in the system of Eom, Yu, Turvey and TANAKA in order to optimize structural designs of flexure mechanisms for a structure that are important when materials, cost, efficiency, and other factors are considered. (see para 0002, Nakhjavani)
Regarding claim 14
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 2, as they share the same elements.
Claim(s) 6, 7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eom et al. (PUB NO: US20220067240A1 in view of TANAKA et al. (PUB NO: JP2004280543A) and further in view of Turvey et al. (PUB NO: US20120000924A1) and further in view of Yu et al. (PUB NO: US20200342067A1)
Regarding claim 6
The combination of Eom, TANAKA and Turvey teaches the method according to claim 5. Eom further teaches wherein the specified material for manufacturing the modeled object is an isotropic material.(see para 37-38- The computer 110 can include various types of computer storage media and devices, which can include the memory 114, to store instructions of programs that run on the processor 112, including Computer Aided Design (CAD) program(s) 116, which implement three-dimensional (3D) modeling functions and can include one or more generative design processes for topology optimization (e.g., using at least one Solid Isotropic Material with Penalization (SIMP) method or at least one level-set method) with numerical simulation. Generative design is a process where a designer or engineer can provide a set of requirements in terms of loads, boundary conditions, materials, initial starting shape, manufacturing constraints and other parameters and the CAD program(s) 116 create various shapes that satisfy the requirements. See para 67- In some implementations, the providing 195 involves generating 195A, e.g., by CAD program(s) 116, toolpath specifications for the computer-controlled manufacturing system(s) using the 3D model, and manufacturing 195B, e.g., by CAD program(s) 116, at least a portion of the physical structure corresponding to the object with the computer-controlled manufacturing system(s) using the toolpath specifications generated for the computer-controlled manufacturing system(s).)
Eom does not teach for at least one iteration of the iterative modification, pre-computing a maximum stress estimated to be experienced by the modeled object based on applying the load of the predefined, not-user-specified load magnitude at the location on the preserve geometry, wherein pre-computing the maximum stress is used as the maximum stress when computing the ratio.
In the related field of invention, Turvey teaches for at least one iteration of the iterative modification, pre-computing a maximum stress estimated to be experienced by the modeled object based on applying the load of the predefined, not-user-specified load magnitude at the location on the preserve geometry, wherein pre-computing the maximum stress is used as the maximum stress when computing the ratio (see para 31- The FEA of the exemplary containers may be performed using, among other programs, ANSYS® software, namely ANSYS Multiphysics. In performing the analysis, the exemplary container is divided into four quarter sections through two imaginary perpendicular vertical planes, the buckling load of the container may be calculated through the following steps: (1) for each quarter section of the container, calculating the stress S10N(MPa) developed in the container when an arbitrary load of 10 N is applied to the top quarter rim of the container; (2) assuming a linear relationship between the load and stress, calculating the maximum load of the quarter section under maximum stress Smax, i.e. the yield strength of the container material (for polypropylene Smax=33 MPa); )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of computer aided design of physical structures as disclosed by Eom to include for at least one iteration of the iterative modification, pre-computing a maximum stress estimated to be experienced by the modeled object based on applying the load of the predefined, not-user-specified load magnitude at the location on the preserve geometry, wherein pre-computing the maximum stress is used as the maximum stress when computing the ratio as taught by Turvey in the system of Eom and TANAKA in order to use plastic that prevents buckling and increases the strength of the container front and rear walls. This shifting of the load more evenly balances the load force around the container and increases the overall buckling force of the entire container. (see para 006-008, Turvey)
The combination of Eom, TANAKA and Turvey does not teach wherein the maximum stress is pre-computed as an approximation for isotropic materials having a Poisson ratio approximated to a predefined value
In the related field of invention, Yu teaches wherein the maximum stress is pre-computed as an approximation for isotropic materials having a Poisson ratio approximated to a predefined value,( See para 32- Topology optimization can be addressed using a variety of numerical methods, which can be broadly classified into two groups: (1) material or microstructure techniques, and (2) geometrical or macrostructure techniques. Microstructure techniques are based on determining the optimum distribution of material density and include the SIMP (Solid Isotropic Microstructure with Penalization) method and the homogenization method. See para 50- Similarly, the selected factors of safety (e.g., calculated based on material-yielding stress/max stress in the solid) can be ranked 215 by their values. For example, if the user selects a first factor of safety of 2.0 and a second factor of safety of 1.5, and then the process of shape/volume reduction goes from the biggest shape (largest factor of safety, e.g., 2.0) to the smallest shape (smallest factor of safety, e.g., 1.5). See para 69-70- Note that the volume target is not sensitive to materials as long as Poisson's ratio of the materials are close enough. Many engineering materials (for structural purpose) have similar Poisson's ratio. For example, the total number of targets can become N-constraints×(N-factor_of_safety×N-materials+N-Volumes) for materials with similar Poisson's ratio)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of computer aided design of physical structures as disclosed by Eom to include wherein the maximum stress is pre-computed as an approximation for isotropic materials having a Poisson ratio approximated to a predefined value as taught by Yu in the system of Eom, Turvey and TANAKA in order to use a computer aided design for building physical structures using various manufacturing systems and techniques and thus optimizes a topology for of the physical structure to be manufactured. (see para 004, Yu)
Regarding claim 7
The combination of Eom, TANAKA, Turvey and Yu teaches the method according to claim 6. Yu further teaches obtaining a set of materials specified for the modeled object for use in manufacturing, (see para 35-The generative design process can have many different inputs and can explore many different design options based on those inputs. Initially, information about the design space (e.g., space constraints), the service conditions (e.g., loads and support constraints), materials (e.g., aluminum, steel, titanium, etc.))
wherein the iteratively modifying comprises for each iteration of the iterative modification:
computing a first ratio for a first specified material and a second ratio for a second specified material, (see para 69-three materials (e.g., aluminum, steel, and titanium), and three volume target reductions (e.g., 75%, 85%, and 95%) there will be twelve targets, and each target can produce a final shape as well as intermediate shapes. Note that the volume target is not sensitive to materials as long as Poisson's ratio of the materials are close enough. Many engineering materials (for structural purpose) have similar Poisson's ratio.)
the first and the second specified materials being isotropic materials, (see para 32- Microstructure techniques are based on determining the optimum distribution of material density and include the SIMP (Solid Isotropic Microstructure with Penalization) method and the homogenization method. In the SIMP method, intermediate material densities are penalized to favor either having ρ=0 or ρ=1, denoting a void or a solid, respectively. Intermediate material densities are treated as composites in the homogenization method.)
an allowable stress limit for the modeled object of a respective first or second specified material; (see para 49- To order 215 the targets, the selected materials are ranked 215 by strength, and then the process of shape/volume reduction goes from the biggest shape (weakest material) to the smallest shape (strongest material). In other words, in a topology optimization process that starts from a larger shape and does a shape reduction to find the optimal shape, shapes that are optimal for weaker materials will be arrived at first, a local optima can then be found for that first target, and then the process can move on to the next, stronger material, which will support further shape reductio. see para 65- Thus, for example, if there are two selected materials, being A36 steel of SM=250 MPa and brass of SM=135 MPa, along with three selected factors of safety being 3.0, 2.0 and 1.5, see six target-allowable stress)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of computer aided design of physical structures as disclosed by Eom to include obtaining a set of materials specified for the modeled object for use in manufacturing, wherein the iteratively modifying comprises for each iteration of the iterative modification: computing a first ratio for a first specified material and a second ratio for a second specified material, the first and the second specified materials being isotropic materials as taught by Turvey in the system of Eom, Turvey and TANAKA in order to use a computer aided design for building physical structures using various manufacturing systems and techniques and thus optimizes a topology for of the physical structure to be manufactured. (see para 004, Yu)
Yu does not teach wherein computing the first and second ratios comprises: dividing an allowable stress limit for the modeled object of a respective first or second specified material to the pre-computed maximum stress to determine the first and the second ratios as approximations for isotropic materials; and determining a first maximum sustainable load for the first specified material and a second maximum sustainable load for the second specified material, wherein the first and the second maximum sustainable loads are associated with the same version of the modified shape but for different specified materials.
In the related of invention, Turvey teaches wherein computing the first and second ratios comprises: dividing an allowable stress limit for the modeled object of a respective first or second specified material to the pre-computed maximum stress to determine the first and the second ratios as approximations for isotropic materials; and determining a first maximum sustainable load for the first specified material and a second maximum sustainable load for the second specified material, wherein the first and the second maximum sustainable loads are associated with the same version of the modified shape but for different specified materials. (See para 31- The FEA of the exemplary containers may be performed using, among other programs, ANSYS® software, namely ANSYS Multiphysics. In performing the analysis, the exemplary container is divided into four quarter sections through two imaginary perpendicular vertical planes, the buckling load of the container may be calculated through the following steps: (1) for each quarter section of the container, calculating the stress S10N(MPa) developed in the container when an arbitrary load of 10 N is applied to the top quarter rim of the container; (2) assuming a linear relationship between the load and stress, calculating the maximum load of the quarter section under maximum stress Smax, i.e. the yield strength of the container material (for polypropylene Smax=33 MPa); (3) multiply the maximum load of the quarter section by four to obtain the maximum load of the container Lmax(lbs). Once the maximum load is determined, buckling load Lbuckling (lbs) may be calculated by multiplying the maximum load Lmax (lbs) by a buckling factor obtained through the FEA modeling.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of coto useaided design of physical structures as disclosed by Eom to include wherein computing the first and second ratios comprises: dividing an allowable stress limit for the modeled object of a respective first or second specified material to the pre-computed maximum stress to determine the first and the second ratios as approximations for isotropic materials; and determining a first maximum sustainable load for the first specified material and a second maximum sustainable load for the second specified material, wherein the first and the second maximum sustainable loads are associated with the same version of the modified shape but for different specified materials as taught by Turvey in the system of Eom, Yu and TANAKA in order to use plastic that prevents buckling and increases the strength of the container front and rear walls. This shifting of the load more evenly balances the load force around the container and increases the overall buckling force of the entire container. (see para 006-008, Turvey)
Regarding claim 19
The combination of Eom, TANAKA and Turvey teaches the computer-readable medium according to claim 18. Yu further teaches wherein each version of the two or more versions when associated with a first material is determined (see para 35-The generative design process can have many different inputs and can explore many different design options based on those inputs. Initially, information about the design space (e.g., space constraints), the service conditions (e.g., loads and support constraints), materials (e.g., aluminum, steel, titanium, etc.) see para 69-three materials (e.g., aluminum, steel, and titanium), and three volume target reductions (e.g., 75%, 85%, and 95%) there will be twelve targets, and each target can produce a final shape as well as intermediate shapes. Note that the volume target is not sensitive to materials as long as Poisson's ratio of the materials are close enough. Many engineering materials (for structural purpose) have similar Poisson's ratio. see para 49- To order 215 the targets, the selected materials are ranked 215 by strength, and then the process of shape/volume reduction goes from the biggest shape (weakest material) to the smallest shape (strongest material). In other words, in a topology optimization process that starts from a larger shape and does a shape reduction to find the optimal shape, shapes that are optimal for weaker materials will be arrived at first, a local optima can then be found for that first target, and then the process can move on to the next, stronger material, which will support further shape reductio. see para 65- Thus, for example, if there are two selected materials, being A36 steel of SM=250 MPa and brass of SM=135 MPa, along with three selected factors of safety being 3.0, 2.0 and 1.5, see six target-allowable stress)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of computer aided design of physical structures as disclosed by Eom to include wherein each version of the two or more versions when associated with a first material is determined to withstand a corresponding first maximum sustainable load that is different from a corresponding second maximum sustainable load that is determined for the same version of the modeled object when associated with a second, different material as taught by Yu in the system of Eom, Turvey and TANAKA in order to use a computer aided design for building physical structures using various manufacturing systems and techniques and thus optimizes a topology for of the physical structure to be manufactured. (see para 004, Yu)
Yu does not teach wherein the respective maximum sustainable load for each of the two or more versions is determined based on using an arbitrary load magnitude to determine the maximum value for the observable quantity as experienced by each of the two or more version.
In the related of invention, Turvey teaches wherein the respective maximum sustainable load for each of the two or more versions is determined based on using an arbitrary load magnitude to determine the maximum value for the observable quantity as experienced by each of the two or more version. (See para 31- The FEA of the exemplary containers may be performed using, among other programs, ANSYS® software, namely ANSYS Multiphysics. In performing the analysis, the exemplary container is divided into four quarter sections through two imaginary perpendicular vertical planes, the buckling load of the container may be calculated through the following steps: (1) for each quarter section of the container, calculating the stress S10N(MPa) developed in the container when an arbitrary load of 10 N is applied to the top quarter rim of the container; (2) assuming a linear relationship between the load and stress, calculating the maximum load of the quarter section under maximum stress Smax, i.e. the yield strength of the container material (for polypropylene Smax=33 MPa); (3) multiply the maximum load of the quarter section by four to obtain the maximum load of the container Lmax(lbs). Once the maximum load is determined, buckling load Lbuckling (lbs) may be calculated by multiplying the maximum load Lmax (lbs) by a buckling factor obtained through the FEA modeling.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of coto useaided design of physical structures as disclosed by Eom to include wherein the respective maximum sustainable load for each of the two or more versions is determined based on using an arbitrary load magnitude to determine the maximum value for the observable quantity as experienced by each of the two or more version. as taught by Turvey in the system of Eom, Yu and TANAKA in order to use plastic that prevents buckling and increases the strength of the container front and rear walls. This shifting of the load more evenly balances the load force around the container and increases the overall buckling force of the entire container. (see para 006-008, Turvey)
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eom et al. (PUB NO: US20220067240A1 in view of TANAKA et al. (PUB NO: JP2004280543A) and further in view of Turvey et al. (PUB NO: US20120000924A1) and further in view of ROBERTS et al. (PUB NO: US 2019/0294754 A1)
Regarding claim 11
The combination of Eom, TANAKA and Turvey teaches the method according to claim 5. The combination does not teach wherein the two or more versions of the modeled object are presented consecutively one after another during the iterative modification of the three dimensional shape, wherein receiving the user selection of one of the two or more versions of the modeled object is in response to a request to interrupt the iterative modification, wherein the method comprises: receiving an indication of a user-defined load magnitude to be sustained at the location; and in response to the received indication, presenting a user selected version of the modeled object with a different maximum sustainable load associated with a different material, wherein the different maximum sustainable load is closer to the indication of the user-defined load magnitude compared to the respective maximum sustainable load presented with the user selected version of the two or more versions of the modeled object.
In the related field of invention, ROBERTS teaches wherein the two or more versions of the modeled object are presented consecutively one after another during the iterative modification of the three dimensional shape, wherein receiving the user selection of one of the two or more versions of the modeled object is in response to a request to interrupt the iterative modification, (see para 12- The GBD approach, however, generates various structures by having the structures fluctuate in response to multiple stimuli/functions applied in the course of a design cycle. Users then select, for manufacture, a structure taken as a “snapshot” of the GBD structure at one point in time, built from the cumulated effect of all of the applied tests. see para 47- The disclosed GBD tool may allow a user to stop or pause the progress at any point, and interact with the designed structure before resuming or saving the structure, e.g., for manufacture. See para 209- Referring to FIG. 4A, the main loop 400 may perform operations including: a) determining if the loop is active (402), and if so, b) updating the display of the design space and user interface (404).)
wherein the method comprises: receiving an indication of a user-defined load magnitude to be sustained at the location; (See para 141- For a linear force, for example, a user may specify a vector direction and a magnitude as constants and/or expressions (e.g., functions of position and time). The force may be applied evenly to the entire selected surface, and any cells that touch the surface may be affected by a subset of the force, e.g., based on an area of the cell face touching the force as a percentage of the area of the entire selected surface. For pressure forces, for instance, the force at each point of a surface may include a normal vector to the surface at that point. Rotational forces may be modeled like the pressure forces (e.g., as vectors), but the direction of the force may be tangent to the surface. See para 66-68- See para 66-70- For example, each mechanical part needs to sustain an intended load. The safety factor may express additional strength that a user may wish to build into the design of the mechanical part, which exceeds the needed strength for the part to withstand the intended load.)
and in response to the received indication, presenting a user selected version of the modeled object with a different maximum sustainable load associated with a different material, wherein the different maximum sustainable load is closer to the indication of the user-defined load magnitude compared to the respective maximum sustainable load presented with the user selected version of the two or more versions of the modeled object.( (see para 12- The GBD approach, however, generates various structures by having the structures fluctuate in response to multiple stimuli/functions applied in the course of a design cycle. Users then select, for manufacture, a structure taken as a “snapshot” of the GBD structure at one point in time, built from the cumulated effect of all of the applied tests. see para 47- The disclosed GBD tool may allow a user to stop or pause the progress at any point, and interact with the designed structure before resuming or saving the structure, e.g., for manufacture. See para 66-70-For example, each mechanical part needs to sustain an intended load. The safety factor may express additional strength that a user may wish to build into the design of the mechanical part, which exceeds the needed strength for the part to withstand the intended load. Through this way of using user input to inform threshold values that trigger structural changes, the GBD process may create a structure with a high safety factor. The GBD structure may respond to the stimuli by changing shape to form designs that sustain responses to stimuli. See para 164- user may modify the material of the cell, substituting, for example, a material such as wood, aluminum, or plastic with that of steel. See para120-For example, the load module 231 may map user-specified forces to compatible forces stored by the design platform 105, and trigger cell growth and death based on user-specified minimum and maximum strain thresholds that are either specified by the user, or preset or determined by the design platform 105 (e.g., by the threshold module 215). See para 209- Referring to FIG. 4A, the main loop 400 may perform operations including: a) determining if the loop is active (402), and if so, b) updating the display of the design space and user interface (404). For example, the initial design space may be a workspace comprising an empty screen that a user may view at one or more angles and orientations. The initial update may include displaying a base cell and a target location. The target location may dictate a “destination” in which cells may start to extend from the initial base cell to the target location, thus initiating the start of the growth-based design process. See also para 196-197)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of computer aided design of physical structures as disclosed by Eom to include wherein the two or more versions of the modeled object are presented consecutively one after another during the iterative modification of the three dimensional shape, wherein receiving the user selection of one of the two or more versions of the modeled object is in response to a request to interrupt the iterative modification, wherein the method comprises: receiving an indication of a user-defined load magnitude to be sustained at the location; and in response to the received indication, presenting a user selected version of the modeled object with a different maximum sustainable load associated with a different material, wherein the different maximum sustainable load is closer to the indication of the user-defined load magnitude compared to the respective maximum sustainable load presented with the user selected version of the two or more versions of the modeled object.as taught by TANAKA in the system of Eom, TANAKA and Turvey in order to provide a method for setting structural analysis conditions that facilitates setting of various necessary conditions. (see para 004-006, ROBERTS)
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reichental et al. US20180285517A1
Discussing the CAD model of an article for manufacture, together with user problem definition input including materials, constraints, load conditions, preferred manufacturing processes, etc. for an optimized design of the article or material microstructure are received via a prompt-and-response graphical user interface.
10. All claims 1-20 are rejected.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PURSOTTAM GIRI whose telephone number is (469)295-9101. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 PM, Monday to Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RENEE CHAVEZ can be reached at 5712701104. 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.
/PURSOTTAM GIRI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights