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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to
determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is
requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the
specification.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. These claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 1,
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is eligible under Step 1 for being directed to processes.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 1 recites
obtaining a CAD model representing the part, the CAD model including a feature tree having one or more CAD parameters each having an initial value; (input data and data description)
obtaining a bead optimization program specified by one or more use and/or manufacturing performance indicators, the one or more indicators having one or more objective functions and/or one or more constraints; (mental process)
and modifying the initial values of the one or more CAD parameters by solving the optimization program using a gradient-based bead optimization method, (mental process)
the optimization method having as free variables the one or more CAD parameters, the optimization method using sensitivities, each sensitivity being an approximation of a respective derivative of a respective performance indicator with respect to a respective CAD parameter. (data description)
The claimed concept is a method of determining optimized parameters by using on mathematic relationship directed to “Mental Process” and/or “Mathematical Concepts” grouping. These limitations can be performed in a human mind or using pen and paper.
Therefore, claim 1 is an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
The obtaining data step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of obtaining input for use in the evaluation step) and amounts to mere data inputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim did not recite additional elements. Note that, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See applicant’s specification page 35-36 for generic computer description.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The same analysis of Step 2A Prong Two applies here in 2B. The present claim does not recite any limitation that would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the claim limitations do not recite a combination of additional elements that tie or “integrate the invention into a practical application”.
Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible. Same conclusion for dependent claims of claim 1. See below.
Claims 2-8 recite limitations which are directed to math concept.
Claims 9-10 recite limitations which are directed to data description.
Same conclusion for independent claims 11, 16 and dependent claims. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the claim limitations do not recite a combination of additional elements that tie or “integrate the invention into a practical application”.
Thus, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9-11 and16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen et al (US2018/0330029 A1), hereinafter Pedersen, in view of Menyhart et al (US 2024/0005049 A1), hereinafter Menyhart, and further in view of Shintani et al (NPL: Bead shape optimization in frequency response problem, 2016), hereinafter Shintani.
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method for designing a sheet part having beads, the method comprising: Pedersen discloses obtaining a CAD model representing the part, the CAD model having one or more CAD parameters each having an initial value;
Pedersen [0079] “The method 550 begins at step 551 with a designer creating an initial model for optimization that includes material properties and the various loading and boundary conditions for the equilibriums of the additive manufacturing process. The model also includes service and life loads for the subsequent equilibriums of the additive manufacturing process. …”
Pedersen discloses obtaining a bead optimization program specified by one or more use and/or manufacturing performance indicators, the one or more indicators having one or more objective functions and/or one or more constraints; and
Pedersen [0081] To continue, at step 555 the design responses are applied to define an optimization problem that comprises constraints which have to be fulfilled and an objective function which is to be optimized. At step 555 the optimization problem is solved using mathematical programming e.g., optimization computations, techniques, and methods. … In such an embodiment, the design responses and the sensitivities of the design responses are inputs for the mathematical programming so as to achieve an industrial target optimized design in a reasonably low number of optimization iterations. In the optimization iterations, the design problem is characterized by having a high number of design variables (e.g., topology variables, shapes, sizing such as thicknesses, lengths, laminate angles, etc.) compared to the number of design responses (e.g., stiffness, displacements, reaction forces, stresses, mass, etc.). According to an embodiment, the design target(s) are defined by the design responses applied in defining an optimization problem consisting of constraints which have to be fulfilled and an objective function which is either minimized or maximized.”
Pedersen [0074] “Embodiments of the present invention can be used to address sensitivity solutions for structural optimization disciplines, such as topology optimization, shape optimization, sizing optimization, and bead optimization….”
Pedersen discloses modifying the initial values of the one or more CAD parameters by solving the optimization program, the optimization method having as free variables the one or more CAD parameters, the optimization method using sensitivities, each sensitivity being an approximation of a respective derivative of a respective performance indicator with respect to a respective CAD parameter.
Pedersen [0074] “Embodiments of the present invention can be used to address sensitivity solutions for structural optimization disciplines, such as topology optimization, shape optimization, sizing optimization, and bead optimization….”
Pedersen [0082] Next, at step 556, a new model is generated using modified design variables determined through the mathematical programming of step 555. When implemented, the design variables determined at steps 554 and 555 and the physical model variables determined at step 556 for generating the new model may be the same, e.g., thickness for a sizing optimization. In other cases, the design variables and the physical models may be different, as for example, in density topology optimization where the relative densities which are design variables are mapped to the physical densities.
Pedersen [0080] At step 552 equilibriums for the additive manufacturing process are determined and at step 553 equilibriums for the service and life loads and boundaries including the state variables of the additive manufacturing process are solved. At step 554, the method 550 determines for each optimization iteration (which includes the steps 552-556) the design responses (e.g., for stiffness, displacements, reaction forces, stresses, mass, etc.) of the equilibriums determined at steps 552 and 553 with respect to the design variables (e.g., topology variables, shapes, sizing as thicknesses, lengths, laminate angles, etc.). At step 554 the analytical sensitivities (i.e., derivatives) of the design responses with respect to the design variables may also be determined.
Pedersen does not appear to explicitly disclose the CAD model including a feature tree
However, Menyhart discloses the CAD model including a feature tree on [0040] “… The explosion graph may represent (implicitly or expressly) a separation sequence to be used in generating an exploded view representation of a CAD model. In some implementations constructed explosion graphs may be in the form of directed acyclic graphs, with directed edges that may indicate blocking relationships between the different CAD parts of the CAD model as explained in greater detail herein. To construct an explosion graph, the model explosion engine 110 may iteratively add nodes into the explosion graph, each node representing a different CAD part of a CAD model.”
Pedersen and Menyhart are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” CAD model analysis.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Pedersen and Menyhart before him or her, to modify the model of Pedersen to include the tree feature of Menyhart because this combination improves visualization of the model.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been Menyhart [0012] “The disclosure herein may provide systems, methods, devices, and logic for generation of exploded views of CAD models. As described in greater detail herein, various model explosion features are disclosed that may increase the efficiency, effectiveness, clarity, spatial visualization, and visual coherency of CAD model explosions. …”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Pedersen and Menyhart to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Pedersen and Menyhart do not appear to explicitly disclose a gradient-based bead optimization method
However, Shintani discloses a gradient-based bead optimization method
(Abstract) “The present paper describes a method finding bead shapes in shell structure to decrease the absolute value of mean compliance under periodic loading by using a solution to shape optimization method. Variation of the shell structure in out-of-plane direction is chosen as a design variable. To create beads, the out-of-plane variation is restricted by using the sigmoid function. The integrated absolute value of mean compliance in target frequency range is used as objective function. An iterative algorithm based on the H1 gradient method is used to solve the problem. The effectiveness of the method is confirmed by numerical example.” See section 5 for detail.
Pedersen, Menyhart and Shintani are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” CAD model analysis.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Pedersen, Menyhart and Shintani before him or her, to modify the model of Pedersen to include the tree feature of Menyhart and gradient method of Shintani because this combination improves performance of the model.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been Shintan (Abstract) “The effectiveness of the method is confirmed by numerical example.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Pedersen, Menyhart and Shintani to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Regarding Claim 11, the same ground of rejection is made as discussed above for substantially similar rationale of claim 1.
In addition, Claim 11 recites “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having recorded thereon a computer program including instructions for performing a method for designing a sheet part having beads”
Pedersen discloses non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having recorded thereon a computer program including instructions for performing a method for designing a sheet part having beads Fig. 21 [0113-0114]
Regarding Claim 16, the same ground of rejection is made as discussed above for substantially similar rationale of claim 1.
In addition, Claim 16 recites “system comprising: a processor coupled to a memory, the memory having recorded thereon a computer program having instructions for designing a sheet part comprising beads that when executed by the processor cause the processor to be configured to:”
Pedersen discloses system comprising: a processor coupled to a memory, the memory having recorded thereon a computer program having instructions for designing a sheet part comprising beads that when executed by the processor cause the processor to be configured to: Fig. 21 [0113-0114]
Claim 9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising, prior to solving the optimization program, computing the sensitivities.
Pedersen [0067] “To illustrate steps 331 and 332 consider a simplified example where a hinge is being constructed and the method 330 is used to optimize design of the hinge and the AM process for producing the hinge. At step 331, a finite element model is defined, in computer memory, that reflects all of the properties of the hinge as it is being constructed as well as properties of the AM process used to construct the hinge, e.g., the dimensions, materials, and heating properties. The model also includes several design variables, e.g., material thickness and hole placement. Further, the behavior of the hinge being produced by the AM process is governed by an equation, known in the art, and this equation includes a respective sensitivity equation for material thickness. Similarly, at step 332, a finite element is defined of the hinge, in computer memory, that reflects all of the properties of the hinge after it has been constructed, e.g., the dimensions, materials, stresses, strains, etc., and the model includes design variables, e.g. material thickness and hole placement. Similarly, to step 331, at step 332 behavior of the hinge after being produced by the AM process is governed by an equation, known in the art, and this equation includes a respective sensitivity equation for material thickness.”
Claim 10. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the sheet part is a curved sheet part.
Pedersen See Fig. 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 12-15 and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to overcome 101 rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Pedersen et al (US2018/0330029 A1) teach a method for designing a real-world object by defining a first model of the object being produced using an additive manufacturing (AM) process, where behavior of the object being produced is given by a first equation which includes a first plurality of corresponding sensitivity equations for a first plurality of design variables. A second model of the object after being produced, wherein behavior of the object after being produced is given by a second equation which includes a second plurality of corresponding sensitivity equations for a second plurality of design variables. In turn, the second model is iteratively optimized with respect to a given one of the second plurality of design variables using both the first plurality of corresponding sensitivity equations and the second plurality of corresponding sensitivity equations.
Menyhart et al (US 2024/0005049 A1) teach a model access engine configured to access a CAD model comprised of multiple CAD parts and a model explosion engine configured to construct a blocking data structure for the CAD model that stores a blocking state for each pair of CAD parts of the CAD model as well as an explosion graph for the CAD model. Iterative generation of the explosion graph by the model explosion engine may include querying the blocking data structure to determine unblocked CAD parts for which to insert a node into the explosion graph. The model explosion engine may also be configured to generate an exploded view representation of the CAD model using the constructed explosion graph.
Shintani et al (NPL: Bead shape optimization in frequency response problem, 2016) teach a method finding bead shapes in shell structure to decrease the absolute value of mean compliance under periodic loading by using a solution to shape optimization method. Variation of the shell structure in out-of-plane direction is chosen as a design variable. To create beads, the out-of-plane variation is restricted by using the sigmoid function. The integrated absolute value of mean compliance in target frequency range is used as objective function. An iterative algorithm based on the H1 gradient method is used to solve the problem. The effectiveness of the method is confirmed by numerical example.
these references taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record fail to disclose limitations, including:
Claims 2, 12 and 17 wherein the sensitivities are compositions of: approximated respective derivatives each of a respective performance indicator with respect to a bead pattern nodal positions of a shell mesh of the part, approximated respective derivatives each of the nodal positions with respect to a geodesic signed distance field on the part, the geodesic signed distance field being a distribution of geodesic signed distances of nodes to the bead pattern on the part, and approximated respective derivatives each of the geodesic signed distance field with respect to a respective CAD parameter of a CAD definition of the bead pattern of the part.
in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUEN-MEEI GAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am to 4:00 pm EST.
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.
/CHUEN-MEEI GAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights