DETAILED ACTION
The office action is responsive to an application filed on 7/6/23 and is being
examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
The current application filed on 6/22/23 claims priority from provisional application
63/495,998 filed on 4/13/2023.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims covers performance of the limitation in the mind or by pencil and paper and as a mathematical concept.
Claims 1, 11 and 19
Regarding step 1, claims 1, 11 and 19 are directed towards a method, a medium and a system which has the claims fall within the eligible statutory categories of processes, machines, manufactures and composition of matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites “determining a portion of an assembly to model as a superelement, wherein the superelement comprises a consolidated representation of the portion of the assembly”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “computing a mathematical model representing the superelement”. This limitation is calculating a mathematical model that represents a superelement. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “eliminating one or more interior degrees of freedom from the mathematical model”. This limitation is eliminating one or more interior degrees of freedom from the mathematical model. This process is done using the Guyan reduction method or any other condensation or reduction method. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “computing a reduced stiffness matrix corresponding to the superelement by solving one or more equations associated with the mathematical model using an iterative sparse matrix solver”. This limitation is calculating a reduced stiffness matrix corresponding to the superelement. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “and performing an optimization associated with a component that interacts with the portion of the assembly, wherein the reduced stiffness matrix is used to represent the superelement.” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what optimization is or how the optimization is being performed. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim includes the additional element of a computer. The computer is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “and performing an optimization associated with a component that interacts with the portion of the assembly, wherein the reduced stiffness matrix is used to represent the superelement.” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what optimization is or how the optimization is being performed. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the computer amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 11
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 11 recites “determining a portion of an assembly to model as a superelement, wherein the superelement comprises a consolidated representation of the portion of the assembly”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites “computing a mathematical model representing the superelement”. This limitation is calculating a mathematical model that represents a superelement. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites “eliminating one or more interior degrees of freedom from the mathematical model”. This limitation is eliminating one or more interior degrees of freedom from the mathematical model. This process is done using the Guyan reduction method or any other condensation or reduction method. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites “computing a reduced stiffness matrix corresponding to the superelement by solving one or more equations associated with the mathematical model using an iterative sparse matrix solver”. This limitation is calculating a reduced stiffness matrix corresponding to the superelement. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “and performing an optimization associated with a component that interacts with the portion of the assembly, wherein the reduced stiffness matrix is used to represent the superelement” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what optimization is or how the optimization is being performed. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim includes the additional elements of a processor and a medium. The processor and a medium are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “and performing an optimization associated with a component that interacts with the portion of the assembly, wherein the reduced stiffness matrix is used to represent the superelement” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what optimization is or how the optimization is being performed. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the processor and a medium amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 19
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 19 recites “determine a portion of an assembly to model as a superelement, wherein the superelement comprises a consolidated representation of the portion of the assembly”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 19 recites “compute a mathematical model representing the superelement”. This limitation is calculating a mathematical model that represents a superelement. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 19 recites “eliminate one or more interior degrees of freedom from the mathematical model”. This limitation is eliminating one or more interior degrees of freedom from the mathematical model. This process is done using the Guyan reduction method or any other condensation or reduction method. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 19 recites “compute a reduced stiffness matrix corresponding to the superelement by solving one or more equations associated with the mathematical model using an iterative sparse matrix solver”. This limitation is calculating a reduced stiffness matrix corresponding to the superelement. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “and perform an optimization associated with a component that interacts with the portion of the assembly, wherein the reduced stiffness matrix is used to represent the superelement.” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what optimization is or how the optimization is being performed. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim includes the additional elements of a processor and a memory. The processor and a memory are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “and perform an optimization associated with a component that interacts with the portion of the assembly, wherein the reduced stiffness matrix is used to represent the superelement.” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what optimization is or how the optimization is being performed. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the processor and the memory amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claims 2 and 12
Dependent claims 2 and 12 recite “reducing one or more boundary degrees of freedom from the mathematical model.”. This limitation is reducing one or more boundary degrees of freedom from the mathematical model. This involves using equations to minimize the boundary degrees of freedom as shown in paragraphs [0051], [0057] – [0059] and [0063] of the specification. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 3 and 13
Dependent claims 3 and 13 recite “wherein reducing one or more boundary degrees of freedom comprises: determining at least one boundary surface comprising one or more boundary nodes associated with the superelement”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claims 3 and 13 recite “and reducing the one or more boundary nodes by substituting the one or more boundary nodes with a central node.”. This limitation is reducing the one or more boundary nodes by substituting the one or more boundary nodes with a central node. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 4 and 14
Dependent claims 4 and 14 recite “wherein the central node is connected to the one or more boundary nodes using stiff springs.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 5 and 15
Dependent claims 5 and 15 recite “wherein the component is part of the assembly and the portion of the assembly associated with the superelement excludes the component”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claims 5 and 15 recite “and wherein the optimization uses topology optimization techniques.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 6 and 16
Dependent claims 6 and 16 recite “storing the reduced stiffness matrix associated with the superelement for subsequent reuse during topology optimization processes associated with the assembly.”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 7 and 17
Dependent claims 7 and 17 recite “computing a stiffness matrix for the component”. This limitation is computing a stiffness matrix for the component. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claims 7 and 17 recite “and performing the optimization of the component using the stiffness matrix for the component and the reduced stiffness matrix associated the superelement”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what optimization is or how the optimization is being performed. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Claims 8, 18 and 20
Dependent claims 8, 18 and 20 recite “wherein eliminating the one or more interior degrees of freedom uses a Guyan reduction process.”. This limitation uses a Guyan reduction process to eliminate one or more interior degrees of freedom. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 9
Dependent claim 9 recites “determining if the portion of the assembly corresponding to the superelement are substantially rigid relative to a component of the assembly being optimized”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
“responsive to a determination that the portion of the assembly is substantially rigid relative to the component, computing the reduced stiffness matrix by approximating the portion of the assembly corresponding to the superelement as a rigid body.”. This limitation is calculating a reduced stiffness matrix by approximating the portion of the assembly corresponding to the superelement as a rigid body. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 10
Dependent claim 10 recites “wherein the mathematical model is computed using linear static analysis.”. The mathematical model is computed using a linear static analysis. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35
U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-12 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over online reference Lightweight design of a crane frame under stress and stiffness constraints using super-element technique, written by Li et al. (from IDS dated 9/3/24) in view of online reference Multi-scale modelling of strongly heterogeneous 3D composite structures using spatial Voronoi tessellation, written by El Said et al.
With respect to claim 1, Li et al. discloses “A computer-implemented method for modeling assemblies using generative design techniques” as [Li et al. (Abstract “In order to solve these problems, a novel and effective method, super-element global modal parameterization, is employed in this article. The advantages of using this approach are that the complex models can be reduced, while the important effects are still taken into account. The design procedure consists of three steps: first, the finite element model is used to analyze the original frame. Then, the stiffness and von Mises stress obtained from the analysis are treated as the design constraints in the next topology and thickness optimization. Finally, a validation of the optimum design for durability is performed, and the results show that all the performances satisfy the requirements.”, Li et al. Pg. 6, Fig. 5)];
“determining a portion of an assembly to model as a superelement, wherein the superelement comprises a consolidated representation of the portion of the assembly” as [Li et al. (Pg. 2, right col., 3rd paragraph, “In this article, a simplified model is used to replace
the complex model by means of SE-GMP technique. Then, the processed structure of the crane frame is optimized based on SIMP method.”, Li et al. Pg. 5, right column, 2nd paragraph, “Figure 5 shows the modeling process of SE model which consists of several main steps: (1) specifying
design domain and nondesign domain, (2) defining the boundary DOFs of the SEs, (3) deleting the component which will be retained in the subsequent optimization, (4) defining a parameter to write out the reduced matrices to an external file and then run the analysis, (5) re-retrieve the crane model and deleting the SEs, and (6) performing the topology optimization with SEs.”, Fig. 5, The examiner considers the frame of the crane to be the superelement, since the frame is a portion of the crane assembly.)];
“computing a mathematical model representing the superelement” as [Li et al. (Pg. 5, right col., 2nd paragraph “Figure 5 shows the modeling process of SE model which consists of several main steps: (1) specifying design domain and nondesign domain, (2) defining the boundary DOFs of the SEs, (3) deleting the component which will be retained in the subsequent optimization, (4) defining a parameter to write out the reduced matrices to an external file and then run the analysis, (5) re-retrieve the crane model and deleting the SEs, and (6) performing the topology optimization with SEs.”, Fig. 5, Design space from the model is deleted, where a model of the superelement part only is computed)];
“eliminating one or more interior degrees of freedom from the mathematical model” as [Li et al. (Pg. 5, left col., last paragraph, “Many academic studies can be identified which
attempt to solve the computational efficiency of the large model. Ambrosio and Verissimo20 proposed a method which permits capturing the global nonlinear behavior of bushing-type elements in an efficient mode. This approach is evolved from sub-system global modal
parameterization (GMP) method which can be treated as a generalization of the SE method.21 Bru¨ ls et al.22 first put forward the idea of GMP method which is used to describe the rigid motion of the system and reduce the amount of degrees of freedom (DOFs).”, Li et al. Pg. 5, right col., 1st paragraph, “Basic theoretical equations of SE. The purpose of the SE
analysis approach is to replace the internal DOFs of the submodels with the boundary DOFs. Then combine these structures which without internal DOFs to the original model (master model) using the FE method and perform the analysis. For the corresponding mathematical
formula, refer to Zuo et al.,23 which simulated the flexibility of joint using SE based on Guyan reduction method. The approach and result can be utilized as guidelines for the design of crane frame to simplify the model.”)];
“computing a reduced stiffness matrix corresponding to the superelement by solving one or more equations associated with the mathematical model” as [Li et al. (Abstract “The design procedure consists of three steps: first, the finite element model is used to analyze the original frame. Then, the stiffness and von Mises stress obtained from the analysis are treated as the design constraints in the next topology and thickness optimization.”, Li et al. Pg. 5 2nd paragraph, “Figure 5 shows the modeling process of SE model which consists of several main steps: (1) specifying design domain and nondesign domain, (2) defining the boundary DOFs of the SEs, (3) deleting the component which will be retained in the subsequent optimization, (4) defining a parameter to write out the reduced matrices to an external file and then run the analysis, (5) re-retrieve the crane model and deleting the SEs, and (6) performing the topology optimization with SEs.”, Fig. 5)];
“and performing an optimization associated with a component that interacts with the portion of the assembly, wherein the reduced stiffness matrix is used to represent the superelement.” as [Li et al. (Pg. 5, right col., 3rd paragraph, “The most critical step in the process of modeling SE is to extract the components that need to be calculated from complex structures, and this involves the boundary simulation of the component. This problem can be
achieved by direct matrix input grid (DMIG) method. Using DMIG approach, the external information of the component can be input into the Nastran calculation document in the form of equivalent matrix. Thus, the component can obtain the same boundary conditions as it in the overall FEM. The related mathematical formula can refer to Guyan reduction method.23 Figure 6 indicates the flowchart of the parameterized software development program of crawler crane.”,, Li et al. Pg. 6, Fig.5, In the DMIG approach, the previously calculated equivalent matrix (reduced stiffness matrix) is input into the frame model for topology optimization in order to accurately model its boundary conditions)];
While Li et al. teaches computing a reduced stiffness matrix corresponding to the superelement by solving one or more equations associated with the mathematical model, Li et al. does not explicitly disclose “computing a reduced stiffness matrix corresponding to the superelement by solving one or more equations associated with the mathematical model using an iterative sparse matrix solver”
El Said et al. discloses “computing a reduced stiffness matrix corresponding to the superelement by solving one or more equations associated with the mathematical model using an iterative sparse matrix solver” as [El Said et al. (Pg. 64, 3rd paragraph, “Here, KMii is the stiffness matrix of the internal degrees of freedom. KMbb is the stiffness matrix components associated with the degrees of freedom on the boundary between the meso- and macro-models…… Once the system is setup in this manner, the macro-scale displacements are recalculated under the Lagrangian forces. Then, a new set of meso-boundary conditions is calculated. A new meso-scale solution is then found and the iteration process proceeds until convergence……. Also, it is worth noting that for the model sizes in this paper where the models have tens of millions of degrees of freedom, sparse matrices and iterative solvers are the only practical option for handling this problem.”)];
Li et al. and El Said et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing the stiffness matrix corresponding to a component.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Li et al. of computing a reduced stiffness matrix corresponding to the superelement by solving one or more equations associated with the mathematical model by incorporating computing a reduced stiffness matrix corresponding to the superelement by solving one or more equations associated with the mathematical model using an iterative sparse matrix solver as taught by El Said et al. for the purpose of modeling the framework of 3D woven structures.
Li et al. in view of El Said et al. teaches computing a reduced stiffness matrix corresponding to the superelement by solving one or more equations associated with the mathematical model using an iterative sparse matrix solver.
The motivation for doing so would have been because El Said et al. teaches that by modeling the framework of 3D woven structures, the ability to gain insight into the mechanical behaviour of 3D woven composites can be accomplished. This allows a way to see the strong relation between the internal yarn architecture and the mechanical response of 3D woven composites (El Said et al., Pg. 69, sec. 7 Conclusion, 1st – 2nd paragraph, “In this paper, a novel integrated multi-scale modelling framework for 3D woven structures, etc.”).
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Li et al. and El Said et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Li et al. further discloses “reducing one or more boundary degrees of freedom from the mathematical model.” as [Li et al. (Pg. 5, left col., last paragraph, “Many academic studies can be identified which attempt to solve the computational efficiency of the large model. Ambrosio and Verissimo20 proposed a method which permits capturing the global nonlinear behavior of bushing-type elements in an efficient mode. This approach is evolved from sub-system global modal parameterization (GMP) method which can be treated as a generalization of the SE method.21 Bru¨ ls et al.22 first put forward the idea of GMP method which is used to describe the rigid motion of the system and reduce the amount of degrees of freedom (DOFs).”, Li et al., Pg. 5, right col., 1st paragraph, “Basic theoretical equations of SE. The purpose of the SE analysis approach is to replace the internal DOFs of the submodels with the boundary DOFs. Then combine these structures which without internal DOFs to the original model (master model) using the FE method and perform the analysis. For the corresponding mathematical formula, refer to Zuo et al.,23 which simulated the flexibility of joint using SE based on Guyan reduction method. The approach and result can be utilized as guidelines for the design of crane frame to simplify the model.”)];
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Li et al. and El Said et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Li et al. further discloses “wherein the component is part of the assembly and the portion of the assembly associated with the superelement excludes the component” as [Li et al. (Pg . 9, left col., Topology optimization of the frame, 2nd paragraph, “As shown in Figure 8, the full model of the crane frame is divided in two parts: a design domain and a nondesign domain. The dark areas, namely, the design domain, are utilized for the topology optimization. It can be seen that the design domain is large enough, and the original frame structure is completely embraced in it. A total of 664,219 hexahedral solid elements are employed in the design domain. The bright areas are excluded from the topology optimization, namely, the nondesign domain and which will keep the structure unchanged during the optimization. The parts in the nondesign domain are utilized for fixing and installing of other components of the crane. The loading conditions and parameters used for the topology optimization are the same as the FE model in section ‘‘FEA of the original frame.’’”, Fig. 8)];
“and wherein the optimization uses topology optimization techniques.” as [Li et al. (Pg . 9, left col., Topology optimization of the frame, 2nd paragraph, “As shown in Figure 8, the full model of the crane frame is divided in two parts: a design domain and a nondesign domain. The dark areas, namely, the design domain, are utilized for the topology optimization.”, Li et al. Pg. 9, left col., 2nd paragraph, “The topology optimization of the crane frame is solved using professional software OptiStruct, which is a powerful solver, and it can perfectly interface the
software Altair Hypermesh. The advantage of using OptiStruct is the constraint screening technique which can greatly improve the efficiency of calculation.”)];
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Li et al. and El Said et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Li et al. further discloses “storing the reduced stiffness matrix associated with the superelement for subsequent reuse during topology optimization processes associated with the assembly.” as [Li et al. (Pg. 5 2nd paragraph, “Figure 5 shows the modeling process of SE model which consists of several main steps: (1) specifying design domain and nondesign domain, (2) defining the boundary DOFs of the SEs, (3) deleting the component which will be retained in the subsequent optimization, (4) defining a parameter to write out the reduced matrices to an external file and then run the analysis, (5) re-retrieve the crane model and deleting the SEs, and (6) performing the topology optimization with SEs.”, Li et al. Pg. 6, right col., 1st paragraph “Table 4 lists the FEA results of the frame. It can be noted that the performances meet most of the design requirements. Hence, the results can be set as the constraints in the topology optimization. For this analysis, a total of 50 iterations are required until convergence with the central processing unit (CPU) time of 15.4 h on the personal computer (PC) platform (WINDOWS Opteron Processor, 16 cores, 128-gigabyte memory), which has a 70% reduction in total computation time.” Fig. 5, With the crane model file being retrieved and a parameter being defined to write out reduced matrices to an external file demonstrates that there is a memory that stores the reduced stiffness matrix)];
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Li et al. and El Said et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Li et al. further discloses “computing a stiffness matrix for the component” as [Li et al. (Pg. 5 2nd paragraph, “Figure 5 shows the modeling process of SE model which consists of several main steps: (1) specifying design domain and nondesign domain, (2) defining the boundary DOFs of the SEs, (3) deleting the component which will be retained in the subsequent optimization, (4) defining a parameter to write out the reduced matrices to an external file and then run the analysis, (5) re-retrieve the crane model and deleting the SEs, and (6) performing the topology optimization with SEs.”, Li et al. Pg. 5, 3rd paragraph, “The most critical step in the process of modeling SE is to extract the components that need to be calculated from complex structures, and this involves the boundary simulation of the component. This problem can be achieved by direct matrix input grid (DMIG) method. Using DMIG approach, the external information of the component can be input into the Nastran calculation document in the form of equivalent matrix. Thus, the component can obtain the same boundary conditions as it in the overall FEM. The related mathematical formula can refer to Guyan reduction method.23 Figure 6 indicates the flowchart of the parameterized software development program of crawler crane.”, Fig. 5)];
“and performing the optimization of the component using the stiffness matrix for the component and the reduced stiffness matrix associated the superelement.” as [Li et al. (Pg. 5 2nd paragraph, “Figure 5 shows the modeling process of SE model which consists of several main steps: (1) specifying design domain and nondesign domain, (2) defining the boundary DOFs of the SEs, (3) deleting the component which will be retained in the subsequent optimization, (4) defining a parameter to write out the reduced matrices to an external file and then run the analysis, (5) re-retrieve the crane model and deleting the SEs, and (6) performing the topology optimization with SEs.”, Fig. 5)];
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Li et al. and El Said et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Li et al. further discloses “wherein eliminating the one or more interior degrees of freedom uses a Guyan reduction process.” as [Li et al. (Pg. 5, left col., last paragraph, “Many academic studies can be identified which attempt to solve the computational efficiency of the large model. Ambrosio and Verissimo20 proposed a method which permits capturing the global nonlinear behavior of bushing-type elements in an efficient mode. This approach is evolved from sub-system global modal parameterization (GMP) method which can be treated as a generalization of the SE method.21 Bru¨ ls et al.22 first put forward the idea of GMP method which is used to describe the rigid motion of the system and reduce the amount of degrees of freedom (DOFs).”, Li et al. Pg. 5, right col., 1st paragraph, “Basic theoretical equations of SE. The purpose of the SE analysis approach is to replace the internal DOFs of the submodels with the boundary DOFs. Then combine these structures which without internal DOFs to the original model (master model) using the FE method and perform the analysis. For the corresponding mathematical formula, refer to Zuo et al.,23 which simulated the flexibility of joint using SE based on Guyan reduction method. The approach and result can be utilized as guidelines for the design of crane frame to simplify the model.”)];
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Li et al. and El Said et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Li et al. further discloses “determining if the portion of the assembly corresponding to the superelement are substantially rigid relative to a component of the assembly being optimized” as [Li et al. (Pg. 5, right col., The results of working condition analysis, 1st paragraph “As discussed in section ‘‘Working condition analysis of
the original model,’’ a total of seven working conditions are considered in the mechanics analysis (namely that when the angle of the rotary support is 0_). In working condition 1 (namely, the overweight lifting condition of the crane), the rotary support is prone to move forward and which leads to the case that the connection part to the frame and the front area of the rotary support is subjected to large load. The maximum von Mises stress under working condition 1 is 495MPa. The computational accuracy needs to be further improved because
the stress around the shaft which is connected with the frame and crawler is generally great, and such situation is considered inaccurate according to the engineering experience.”, The examiner considers the crawler, which is part of the crane to be the component that the superelement is compared to for being rigid)];
“responsive to a determination that the portion of the assembly is substantially rigid relative to the component, computing the reduced stiffness matrix by approximating the portion of the assembly corresponding to the superelement as a rigid body.” as [Li et al. (Pg. 5, right col., 2nd paragraph “Figure 5 shows the modeling process of SE model which consists of several main steps: (1) specifying design domain and nondesign domain, (2) defining the boundary DOFs of the SEs, (3) deleting the component which will be retained in the subsequent optimization, (4) defining a parameter to write out the reduced matrices to an external file and then run the analysis, (5) re-retrieve the crane model and deleting the SEs, and (6) performing the topology optimization with SEs.”, Li et al. Pg. 6 left col. 1st paragraph “From working conditions 2–7, it can be obviously found that the maximum stress is lower than that of working condition 1, and simultaneously, the high-stress area is also smaller. By comparing the stress distribution of frame under seven working conditions, it can be found that the overall stress level of the frame is prone to concentrate on both extremes. Namely that the stress is very high in high-stress area, and in the contrary, the stress is very low in the low stress domain. In this article, due to the unreasonable stress distribution, many important design requirements should be concerned when the lightweight design of the frame is carried out, such as the compliance, stiffness, and durability. Typically, stiffness is the most important boundary condition among
the targets mentioned above. Hence, the stiffness is chosen as the design objective for the following topology optimization, while leaving other performance parameters as the design constraint.”, Fig. 5)];
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Li et al. and El Said et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Li et al. further discloses “wherein the mathematical model is computed using linear static analysis.” as [Li et al. (Pg. 3, right col., Working condition analysis of the original model, 1st paragraph, “In this article, the professional software Altair
Hypermesh 13.0 is employed to establish the finite element model (FEM) for the crane, as shown in Figure 3. The model is characterized by 729,998 hexahedral elements, including 812,561 nodes. This model adopts linear elastic material properties. The frame contains three kinds of materials: Q550, Q460, and Q690. The properties of these materials are listed in Table 1, and
the safety factor is set as 1.3 in the analysis.”)];
With respect to claim 11, Li et al. discloses “One or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors” as [Li et al. (Pg. 6, right col., 1st paragraph “Table 4 lists the FEA results of the frame. It can be noted that the performances meet most of the design requirements. Hence, the results can be set as the constraints in the topology optimization. For this analysis, a total of 50 iterations are required until convergence with the central processing unit (CPU) time of 15.4 h on the personal computer (PC) platform (WINDOWS Opteron Processor, 16 cores, 128-gigabyte memory), which has a 70% reduction in total computation time.”)];
The other limitations of the claim recite the same substantive limitations of claim 1 above and are rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 12, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 2 above and is rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claims 15-18, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as claims 5-8 above, and are rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 19, Li et al. discloses “A system” as [Li et al. (Pg. 5, left col. 3rd paragraph, “Many academic studies can be identified which attempt to solve the computational efficiency of the large model. Ambrosio and Verissimo20 proposed a method which permits capturing the global nonlinear behavior of bushing-type elements in an efficient mode. This approach is evolved from sub-system global modal parameterization (GMP) method which can be treated as a generalization of the SE method.21 Bru¨ ls et al.22 first put forward the idea of GMP method which is used to describe the rigid motion of the system and reduce the amount of degrees of freedom (DOFs).”)];
“one or more memories that store instructions, and one or more processors that are coupled to the one or more memories” as [Li et al. (Pg. 6, right col., 1st paragraph “Table 4 lists the FEA results of the frame. It can be noted that the performances meet most of the design requirements. Hence, the results can be set as the constraints in the topology optimization. For this analysis, a total of 50 iterations are required until convergence with the central processing unit (CPU) time of 15.4 h on the personal computer (PC) platform (WINDOWS Opteron Processor, 16 cores, 128-gigabyte memory), which has a 70% reduction in total computation time.”)];
The other limitations of the claim recite the same substantive limitations of claim 1 above and are rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 20, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 8 above and is rejected using the same teachings.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Li et al. in view of El Said et al. in view of online reference Advanced Vehicle Body Concept Modeling Approach Using Reduced Models of Beams and Joints, written by Stigliano et al. (from IDS dated 9/3/24).
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Li et al. and El Said et al. discloses the method of claim 2 above.
While the combination of Li et al. and El Said et al. teaches reducing one or more boundary degrees of freedom from the mathematical model, Li et al. and El Said et al. do not explicitly disclose “wherein reducing one or more boundary degrees of freedom comprises: determining at least one boundary surface comprising one or more boundary nodes associated with the superelement; and reducing the one or more boundary nodes by substituting the one or more boundary nodes with a central node”
Stigliano et al. discloses “wherein reducing one or more boundary degrees of freedom comprises: determining at least one boundary surface comprising one or more boundary nodes associated with the superelement” as [Stigliano et al. (Pg. 4182, sec. 2.2 Academic application and sensitivity analysis, 1st paragraph “In particular, by the program LMS Virtual.Lab [8], the beam-like structures have been reduced (see Figure 4) by equivalent beam elements and the joints have been reduced into superelements (Nastran DMIG – Direct Matrix Input Grid) by the Guyan condensation at the central node of the connection elements (RBE3 or RBE2).”, Stigliano et al. (Pg. 4184, sec. 3.1 New beam to joint connection: the RBE2.5 element, 1st paragraph “On the other hand, the use of rigid RBE2 connection increases the
stiffness of the structure. To avoid this stiffening effect and to better describe the section-rotation with respect its central node, a new connection has been developed that combines the best of both worlds (no end effects and no stiffening effect). The proposed new connection element takes the quality of the RBE2 in describing the rotation of the end section but, it doesn‟t suffer from end effect problems (as the RBE3 element). In analogy, this new element has been called “RBE2.5” connection. As shown in Figure 7, this new connection element is composed of 1 RBE2 and 10 RBE3 elements. In particular the end section is divided in 10 sectors wherein all the nodes belong to each sector are connected by RBE3 elements to a central node. These central nodes are found by an average of the positions of the nodes that belong to each sector.”)];
“and reducing the one or more boundary nodes by substituting the one or more boundary nodes with a central node.” as [Stigliano et al. (Pg. 4182, sec. 2.2 Academic application and sensitivity analysis, 1st paragraph “In particular, by the program LMS Virtual.Lab [8], the beam-like structures have been reduced (see Figure 4) by equivalent beam elements and the joints have been reduced into superelements (Nastran DMIG – Direct Matrix Input Grid) by the Guyan condensation at the central node of the connection elements (RBE3 or RBE2).”, Stigliano et al. (Pg. 4184, sec. 3.1 New beam to joint connection: the RBE2.5 element, 1st paragraph “On the other hand, the use of rigid RBE2 connection increases the
stiffness of the structure. To avoid this stiffening effect and to better describe the section-rotation with respect its central node, a new connection has been developed that combines the best of both worlds (no end effects and no stiffening effect). The proposed new connection element takes the quality of the RBE2 in describing the rotation of the end section but, it doesn‟t suffer from end effect problems (as the RBE3 element). In analogy, this new element has been called “RBE2.5” connection. As shown in Figure 7, this new connection element is composed of 1 RBE2 and 10 RBE3 elements. In particular the end section is divided in 10 sectors wherein all the nodes belong to each sector are connected by RBE3 elements to a central node. These central nodes are found by an average of the positions of the nodes that belong to each sector.”)];
Li et al., El Said et al. and Stigliano et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing the components of an assembly.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Li et al. and El Said et al. of reducing one or more boundary degrees of freedom from the mathematical model by incorporating wherein reducing one or more boundary degrees of freedom comprises: determining at least one boundary surface comprising one or more boundary nodes associated with the superelement; and reducing the one or more boundary nodes by substituting the one or more boundary nodes with a central node as taught by Stigliano et al. for the purpose of modeling a vehicle body.
Li et al. in view of El Said et al. in further view of Stigliano et al. teaches wherein reducing one or more boundary degrees of freedom comprises: determining at least one boundary surface comprising one or more boundary nodes associated with the superelement; and reducing the one or more boundary nodes by substituting the one or more boundary nodes with a central node.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Stigliano et al. teaches that by modeling a vehicle body, the ability to have accurate Noise, Vibration and Harshness (NVH)
simulations of the vehicle Body in White (BIW) already in the initial design process, can be accomplished. This allows for a more accurate and efficient design of a vehicle (Stigliano et al. Abstract, Pg., 4188, Sec. 5 Conclusion, In this paper, new improvements to the “Beam and Joint Concept Modeling” methodology have been presented and validated, etc.”).
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Li et al., El Said et al. and Stigliano et al. discloses the method of claim 3 above, and Stigliano et al. further discloses “wherein the central node is connected to the one or more boundary nodes using stiff springs.” as [Stigliano et al. (Pg. 4184, sec. 3.1 New beam to joint connection: the RBE2.5 element, 1st paragraph “On the other hand, the use of rigid RBE2 connection increases the
stiffness of the structure. To avoid this stiffening effect and to better describe the section-rotation with respect its central node, a new connection has been developed that combines the best of both worlds (no end effects and no stiffening effect). The proposed new connection element takes the quality of the RBE2 in describing the rotation of the end section but, it doesn‟t suffer from end effect problems (as the RBE3 element). In analogy, this new element has been called “RBE2.5” connection. As shown in Figure 7, this new connection element is composed of 1 RBE2 and 10 RBE3 elements. In particular the end section is divided in 10 sectors wherein all the nodes belong to each sector are connected by RBE3 elements to a central node. These central nodes are found by an average of the positions of the nodes that belong to each sector. Starting from the central nodes of the 10 RBE3 elements, an RBE2 element is built (see
Figure 7). The number of 10 RBE3 elements has been selected as a good balance between ensuring connectivity while limiting the number of additional elements.”, Fig. 7)];
With respect to claims 13-14, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as claims 3 and 4 above, and are rejected using the same teachings.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The relevance of Suresh et al. (U.S. PGPub 2010/0153077) is a method and system for simulating and analyzing the behavior of a structural component of a computerized model in response to a simulated event to determine an optimized shape for the component.
The relevance of Cramer et al. (U.S. PGPub 2021/0406412) is techniques and systems for
computer aided design of physical structures using an object splitting design process that optimize manufacturing efficiency.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD E COTHRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5594. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -5:30PM EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan F Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BERNARD E COTHRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights