DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Responsive to communication filed on 24 Aug 2023.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements dated 24 Aug 2023 and 8 Jan 2025 have been reviewed. See attached.
Drawings
The drawing dated 24 Aug 2023 have been reviewed. They are accepted.
Specification
The abstract dated 24 Aug 2023 has been reviewed. It contains 137 words and 10 lines and has no legal phraseology. It is accepted.
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 a judicial exception without significantly more. The following section follows the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG) for analyzing subject matter eligibility:
Step 1 - Statutory Category:
Step 1 of the PEG analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within
the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A Prong One - Judicial exception:
In Step 2A Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an
abstract idea, law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Step 2A Prong Two - Integration into a practical application:
If claims recite a judicial exception, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong 2. In Step
2A Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. This evaluation considers any additional elements in the claim beyond any recited judicial
exceptions.
Step 2B - Significantly More:
If the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 do not integrate the exception into a
practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception and requires further
analysis under Step 2B- Significantly More. This evaluation is to evaluate if the additional elements of
the claim provide an inventive concept.
As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of the additional element(s) in the claim
from Step 2A Prong 2, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 on the considerations discussed
in MPEP 2106.05(a) -(c), (e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. Claim limitations identified as Insignificant
Extra-Solution Activities are re-evaluated to determine if the elements are beyond what is well -
understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity, as dictated by MPEP 2106.05(II).
The additional elements are evaluated to determine if any additional element or combination of
elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply
append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a
high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Claims 1-9
Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-9 are directed to a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
“calculating a plurality of second level parameters with a computer based on the plurality of input parameters;” This limitation is simply calculating a set of variables (“second level parameters”) from a set of gathered variables (“input parameters”). Therefore, this limitation recites the use of the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
“building a plurality of component models of the plurality of components absent the one or more fasteners based on the plurality of second level parameters;” This limitation can reasonably be read as a human creating, after gathering certain variables (“second level parameters”), the components of a final assembly within their imagination. In the creative process of creating a new assembly, human imagination is the starting point for every creation. This limitation does not distinctly separate the claimed limitation from human imagination. Therefore, this limitation recites the judicial exception of the abstract idea of a mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
“generating an assembly model by combining the plurality of component models with one or more fastener models of the one or more fasteners in the plurality of fastener bores;” This limitation can reasonably be read as a human creating an assembled device within their imagination. In the creative process of creating a new assembly, human imagination is the starting point for every creation. This limitation does not distinctly separate the claimed limitation from human imagination. Therefore, this limitation recites the judicial exception of the abstract idea of a mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
“generate a plurality of analysis key words;” This limitation can reasonably be read as a human writing down a set of words (“analysis key words”) on a piece of paper. A limitation that recites a process that can be performed in the human mind, with or without a physical aid such as a pen and paper, recites the definition of the judicial exception of a mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
“generating an input file based on the plurality of analysis key words, wherein the input file is suitable for a finite element analysis.” This limitation can reasonably be read as a human writing down information on piece of paper based on previously obtained information (“analysis key words”). A limitation that recites a process that can be performed in the human mind, with or without a physical aid such as a pen and paper, recites the definition of the judicial exception of a mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 1 additionally recites the limitation(s):
“receiving a plurality of input parameters of a plurality of components connectable with one or more fasteners;” This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering.
“subtracting a plurality of fastener bores from the plurality of component model;” This limitation has been identified as Mere Instruction to Apply (MPEP 2016.05(f)) the judicial exception. In light of the specification, there is no explanation of how this subtracting limitation would integrate the claim into a practical application. Therefore, this limitation shall be taken to be simply another step in the instructions to apply the judicial exceptions.
“applying a plurality of boundary conditions to the assembly model;” This limitation has been identified as Mere Instruction to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2016.05(f)) the judicial exception.
“applying a plurality of loads to the assembly model under the plurality of boundary conditions” This limitation has been identified as Mere Instruction to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2016.05(f)) the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to insignificant extra-solution activity are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitation identified above as being insignificant extra-solution activity are directed to merely gathering a variety of information (“input parameters”) on components that are connectable with fasteners. This can reasonably be seen as a human gathering data (e.g. from an instruction manual) on one or more components. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Claim 2:
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 2, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 2 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
“rotating a plurality of component nodes of the plurality of component models to align with a fiber orientation of the plurality of components.” This limitation can reasonably be read as a human aligning the fibers within components within their imagination. In the creative process of creating a new assembly, human imagination is the starting point for every creation. This limitation does not distinctly separate the claimed limitation from human imagination. Therefore, this limitation recites the judicial exception of the abstract idea of a mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 2 does not contain any further limitations.
Step 2B: As there are no limitations that fall within the Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity category, no further evaluation is required at this step.
Claim 3:
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 3, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 3 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
“calculating a center of a curvature of the assembly model.” This limitation is simply calculating a certain parameter (“a center of a curvature”). Therefore, this limitation recites the use of the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 3 recites no further limitations.
Step 2B: As there are no limitations that fall within the Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity category, no further evaluation is required at this step.
Claim 4:
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 4, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 4 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
“updating a plurality of component nodes of the plurality of component models based on the center and the curvature of the assembly model.” This limitation can reasonably be seen as a human imagining changing pieces of a component (“component nodes”) based upon gathered information (“the center and the curvature”). This limitation can be practically performed in the human mind or using an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 4 recites no further limitations.
Step 2B: As there are no limitations that fall within the Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity category, no further evaluation is required at this step.
Claim 5:
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 5, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: No further judicial exceptions have been incorporated in claim 5.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 5 additionally recites the limitation(s):
“assigning a material to the plurality of component models.” This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as it simply stating that a material should be assigned to the judicial exception (“component models”) without stating how assigning the material affects the inventive concept of the claims.
Step 2B: As there are no limitations that fall within the Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity category, no further evaluation is required at this step.
Claim 6:
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 6, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 6 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
“adding on or more extra models to the assembly model,” This limitation can reasonably be read as a human adding more components/pieces to an assembly they have created in their imagination. This limitation does not distinctly separate the claimed limitation from human imagination. Therefore, this limitation recites the judicial exception of the abstract idea of a mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 6 additionally recites the limitation(s):
“wherein the one or more extra models include one or more strap models, spacer models, shim models, or a combination thereof.” This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) as the judicial exception (“extra models”) is simply being limited to those of a strap, spacer, or shim.
Step 2B: As there are no limitations that fall within the Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity category, no further evaluation is required at this step.
Claim 7:
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 7, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: No further judicial exceptions have been incorporated in claim 7.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 7 additionally recites the limitation(s):
“translating the one or more extra models within the assembly model.” This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as it is merely stating that the judicial exception (“extra models”) should be translated within the assembly model.
Step 2B: As there are no limitations that fall within the Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity category, no further evaluation is required at this step.
Claim 8:
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 8, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: No further judicial exceptions have been incorporated in claim 8.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 8 additionally recites the limitation(s):
“rotating the one or more extra models within the assembly model.” This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as it is merely stating that the judicial exception (“extra models”) should be rotated within the assembly model.
Step 2B: As there are no limitations that fall within the Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity category, no further evaluation is required at this step.
Claim 9:
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 9, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: No further judicial exceptions have been incorporated in claim 9.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 9 additionally recites the limitation(s):
“reading the plurality of input parameters and the one or more fasteners from one or more libraries.” This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as it is merely stating that the parameters (“input parameters”) used to create the judicial exceptions (“component models”) should be received from one or more libraries.
Step 2B: As there are no limitations that fall within the Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity category, no further evaluation is required at this step.
Claims 10-17
Claim 10:
Step 1: Claim 10 and its dependent claims 11-17 are directed to a system which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim language and structure of Claim 10 are similar to those of Claim 1, thus the rationale for rejection from Claim 1 shall apply to Claim 10.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim language and structure of claim 10 are similar to those of Claim 1, thus the rationale for rejection from Claim 1 shall apply to Claim 10. Claim 10 additionally recites the limitation:
“one or more libraries operational to store a plurality of input parameters of a plurality of components and a plurality of fasteners;” This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as it is merely stating that the information (“input parameters” and “fasteners”) used to create the judicial exception (“assembly model”) should be received from one or more libraries in the machine.
Step 2B: The claim language and structure of Claim 10 are similar to those of Claim 1, thus the rationale for rejection from Claim 1 shall apply to Claim 10.
Claims 11-17:
Claims 11-17 share similar claim language and structure to claims 2-8 (respectively). Thus, the rationale for rejection for claims 2-8 shall apply to claims 11-17 (respectively).
Claims 18-20
Claim 18:
Step 1: Claim 18 and its dependent claims 19 and 20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim language and structure of Claim 18 are similar to those of Claim 1, thus the rationale for rejection from Claim 1 shall apply to Claim 18.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim language and structure of claim 18 are similar to those of Claim 1, thus the rationale for rejection from Claim 1 shall apply to Claim 18.
Step 2B: The claim language and structure of Claim 18 are similar to those of Claim 1, thus the rationale for rejection from Claim 1 shall apply to Claim 18.
Claim 19
Claim 19 shares similar claim language and structure to claim 2. Thus, the rationale for rejection for claim 2 shall apply to claim 19.
Claim 20
Claim 20 shares similar claim language and structure to claims 3 and 4. Thus, the rationale for rejection for claims 3 and 4 shall apply to claim 20.
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 9-10, 14-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westin_2020 (US 2020/0097624 A1) in view of Wang-yu_2020 (CN 111462837 A) in view of Gatzke_2008 (US 2008/0111813 A1). NOTE: The examiner will be referencing the English machine translation of foreign documents throughout this office action (see attached).
Claim 1. Westin_2020 teaches “A method for modeling joints with fasteners, (Par. 8: “Some example implementations provide a method for designing or manufacturing a structural product, the method comprising: producing a computer-aided design (CAD) model of a structural product including component parts joined by fasteners…) comprising: receiving a plurality of input parameters of a plurality of components connectable with one or more fasteners; ((Par. 34: “…the CAD model generator is configured to produce the second CAD model based on a first CAD model of the structural product…) NOTE: The second CAD model is being created from data (i.e. “input parameters”) from the first CAD model)) calculating a plurality of second level parameters with a computer based on the plurality of input parameters; (Par. 51: “…the module finds fasteners near surfaces of the first CAD model, and finds or calculates intersections between the fasteners and surfaces of the component parts…”) building a plurality of component models of the plurality of components absent the one or more fasteners based on the plurality of second level parameters; (Par. 33: “The CAD model produced by the CAD model generator excludes structural definitions of the fasteners…” NOTE: The CAD model referenced here is the second CAD model (mentioned in Par. 34) being produced, which is based on the first CAD model given as input) generating an assembly model by combining the plurality of component models with one or more fastener models of the one or more fasteners in the plurality of fastener bores; (Par. 35: “…the FDTD model generator 102 is configured to produce a FDTD model of the structural product from the CAD model. The FDTD model represents the component parts and fasteners by a mesh of elements…”).
While Westin_2020 teaches a method to create a model with fasteners, Westin_2020 does not explicitly state a step of “subtracting a plurality of fastener bores from the plurality of component model;”.
Gatzke_2008, however, teaches “subtracting a plurality of fastener bores from the plurality of component model;” (Par. 10: “An embodiment of the present invention provides a computer implemented method, apparatus, and computer usable program code for placing fasteners in a three dimensional product definition.”, Par. 67: “…in other embodiments, a hole may actually be created.”) NOTE: The hole being created is in reference to a hole (e.g. bore) a faster would sit in on a model. The examiner is reading “subtracting” as removing material from a model to create a bore hole for a fastener.
Westin_2020 and Gatzke_2008 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called CAD model generation. Before the effective filling date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Westin_2020 and Gatzke_2008. The rationale for doing so would have been to allow the users of Westin_2020 to have a visual representation of the bore holes (Gatzke_2008 Par. 67 “This feature may be useful in an instance in which fasteners are not placed into the components at that point, but users desire to include a geometric representation for the hole within the design.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the CAD modeling system and method of Westin_2020 with the ability to create bore holes of Gatzke_2008 to obtain a system and method with more user choice.
Westin_2020 and Gatzke_2008 teach a method to generate a CAD model with or without bore holes for fasteners. Westin_2020 and Gatzke_2008 do not teach “applying a plurality of boundary conditions to the assembly model; applying a plurality of loads to the assembly model under the plurality of boundary conditions to generate a plurality of analysis key words; and generating an input file based on the plurality of analysis key words, wherein the input file is suitable for a finite element analysis.”
Wang-yu_2020, however, teaches “applying a plurality of boundary conditions to the assembly model; (Pg. 3 Par 23: “defining boundary conditions, and applying objects to be a predefined boundary unit set and a node set;”) applying a plurality of loads to the assembly model under the plurality of boundary conditions (Pg. 4 Par. 1: “and applying loads, wherein the objects are predefined characteristic domains or boundary unit sets and node sets.”) to generate a plurality of analysis key words; (Pg. 4 Par. 3: “defining calculation and analysis content;”) and generating an input file based on the plurality of analysis key words, wherein the input file is suitable for a finite element analysis.” (Pg. 4 Par. 5: “and completing the generation of the Input file, and directly applying the Input file to finite element simulation calculation.”) NOTE: Abaqus input files, which are being generated by Wang-yu_2020, require key words as an innately defined part of their structure (See “Abaqus input file format explanation” in prior art referenced but not relied upon section of conclusion).
Westin_2020, Gatzke_2008, and Wang-yu_2020 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called model construction and analysis. Before the effective filling date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Westin_2020, Gatzke_2008 and Wang-yu_2020. The rationale for doing so would have been to reduce the amount of software needed for and number of steps of performing a finite element analysis on a model (Wang-yu_2020 Pg. 4 Par. 8: “The finally obtained Input file can be directly applied to abaqus finite element software for simulation calculation, manual operation of third party commercial modeling software and the finite element software is not needed…”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the steps of Wang-yu_2020 to generate an input file based on the model generated by Westin_2020 and Gatzke_2008.
Claim 5. Westin_2020, Gatzke_2008, and Wang-yu_2020 teach the limitations of claim 1. Westin_2020 also teaches “assigning a material to the plurality of component models.” (Par. 44: “…the FDTD model generator 102 is configured to produce the FDTD model of the structural product from the second CAD model and assign material and fastener parameters…”).
Claim 6. Westin_2020, Gatzke_2008, and Wang-yu_2020 teach the limitations of claim 1. Gatzke_2008 further teaches “adding one or more extra models to the assembly model, wherein the one or more extra models include one or more strap models, spacer models, shim models, or a combination thereof.” (Claim 3: “…identifying a spacer needed for the fastener to form an identified spacer; and placing the identified spacer and the identified mating part into the location with the fastener…”).
Claim 9. Westin_2020, Gatzke_2008, and Wang-yu_2020 teach the limitations of claim 1. Westin_2020 also teaches “…reading the plurality of input parameters and the one or more fasteners from one or more libraries.” (Fig. 2 and Par. 42: “The source data may include structural geometry and fastener CAD models of the structural product as shown. In one embodiment, the source data may include a model database 204.”)
Claim 10. Westin_2020 teaches “A system for modeling joints with fasteners, (Par. 21: “FIG. 1 illustrates a system for engineering analysis of a structural product…”) comprising: one or more libraries operational to store a plurality of input parameters of a plurality of components and a plurality of fasteners; (Fig. 2 and Par. 42: “The source data may include structural geometry and fastener CAD models of the structural product as shown. In one embodiment, the source data may include a model database 204.”).
The further limitations of claim 10 are similar in structure and language to those of claim 1. Thus, the rationale for rejection of claim 1 shall apply to the further limitations of claim 10.
Claim 14. Westin_2020, Gatzke_2008, and Wang-yu_2020 teach the limitations of claim 10. The further limitations of claim 14 are similar in structure and language to those of claim 5. Thus, the rationale for rejection of claim 5 shall apply to the further limitations of claim 14.
Claim 15. Westin_2020, Gatzke_2008, and Wang-yu_2020 teach the limitations of claim 10. The further limitations of claim 15 are similar in structure and language to those of claim 6. Thus, the rationale for rejection of claim 6 shall apply to the further limitations of claim 15.
Claim 18. Westin_2020 teaches “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions that control data processing, the instructions, when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform a plurality of operations…” (Par. 17: “The computer-readable storage medium is non-transitory and has computer-readable program code stored therein that in response to execution by a processor…”).
The further limitations of claim 18 are similar in structure and language to those of claim 1. Thus, the rationale for rejection of claim 1 shall apply to the further limitations of claim 18.
Claims 2, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westin_2020 (US 2020/0097624 A1) in view of Wang-yu_2020 (CN 111462837 A) in view of Gatzke_2008 (US 2008/0111813 A1) in view of Blom-Schieber_2022 (US 11436390 B2).
Claim 2. Westin_2020, Gatzke_2008, and Wang-yu_2020 teach the limitations of claim 1. Westin_2020, Gatzke_2008, and Wang-yu_2020 do not teach “rotating a plurality of component nodes of the plurality of component models to align with a fiber orientation of the plurality of components.”
Blom-Schieber_2022, however, teaches “rotating a plurality of component nodes of the plurality of component models (Col. 7 Line 60: “The planar surface elements 128 are defined by nodes (e.g., vertices of a polygon) joined by edges (e.g., sides of the polygon)”; Col. 8 Line 20: “the unit vector 206A is rotated around the normal 132A … to generate the unit vector 214A representing a projection of the target fiber direction) to align with a fiber orientation of the plurality of components.” (Col. 8 Line 17: “…the target fiber direction 208 corresponds to a nominal fiber orientation…”).
Westin_2020, Gatzke_2008, Wang-yu_2020, and Blom-Schieber_2022 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called CAD model generation. Before the effective filling date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Westin_2020, Gatzke_2008, Wang-yu_2020, and Blom-Schieber_2022. The rationale for doing so would have been to strengthen the end-product manufactured from the model produced by Westin_2020, Gatzke_2008, and Wang-yu_2020 (Blom-Schieber_2022 Col. 1 Line 21: “…a part may have a greater tensile strength along a direction parallel to the fibers than the tensile strength along a direction perpendicular to the fibers.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the fiber orientation method of Blom-Schieber_2022 on the model generated by Westin_2020, Gatzke_2008, and Wang-yu_2020.
Claim 11. Westin_2020, Gatzke_2008, and Wang-yu_2020 teach the limitations of claim 10. The further limitations of claim 11 are similar in structure and language to those of claim 2. Thus, the rationale for rejection of claim 2 shall apply to the further limitations of claim 11.
Claim 19. Westin_2020, Gatzke_2008, and Wang-yu_2020 teach the limitations of claim 18. The further limitations of claim 19 are similar in structure and language to those of claim 2. Thus, the rationale for rejection of claim 2 shall apply to the further limitations of claim 19.
Claims 3, 4, 12, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westin_2020 (US 2020/0097624 A1) in view of Wang-yu_2020 (CN 111462837 A) in view of Gatzke_2008 (US 2008/0111813 A1) in view of Kunjin_2020 (CN 107515995 B).
Claim 3. Westin_2020, Gatzke_2008, and Wang-yu_2020 teach the limitations of claim 1. Westin_2020, Gatzke_2008, and Wang-yu_2020 do not teach “calculating a center of a curvature of the assembly model.”
Kunjin_2020, however, teaches “calculating a center of a curvature of the assembly model.” (Pg. 10 Par. 3: “based on the obtained coordinates of the center positions x, y and z of all the curved surfaces in any curved surface class…”).
Westin_2020, Gatzke_2008, Wang-yu_2020, and Kunjin_2020 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called CAD modeling. Before the effective filling date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Westin_2020, Gatzke_2008, Wang-yu_2020, and Kunjin_2020. The rationale for doing so would have been utilize the calculated center of curvature to provide a method for a user to manipulate and deform models while still maintaining similar visuals to the pre-manipulated model. (Kunjin_2020 Pg. 5 Par. 4: “In order to overcome the defects of the prior art, the invention aims to provide the electric vehicle deformation design method supporting the user-defined semantics, so that the appearance of the electric vehicle which is designed by a user is visually and vividly displayed.”)
Claim 4. Westin_2020, Gatzke_2008, Wang-yu_2020, and Kunjin_2020 teach the limitations of claim 1. Kunjin_2020 further teaches “updating a plurality of component nodes of the plurality of component models based on the center and the curvature of the assembly model.” (Pg. 10 Par. 3: “According to tx＞0.05,ty＞0.05,tz> 0.05, when the inequality holds, the curved surface can translate
along the x, y and z axes, otherwise, variables of the discrimination conditions which are not satisfied cannot be translated on the corresponding axes;” Pg. 7 Par. 4: “the curved surfaces of the parts constituting the electric vehicle are controlled by user editing manipulator nodes…”) NOTE: The nodes of the curved surfaces are being updated as to whether or not they can be manipulated along the x, y, and z axes.
Claim 12. Westin_2020, Gatzke_2008, and Wang-yu_2020 teach the limitations of claim 10. The further limitations of claim 12 are similar in structure and language to those of claim 3. Thus, the rationale for rejection of claim 3 shall apply to the further limitations of claim 12.
Claim 13. Westin_2020, Gatzke_2008, and Wang-yu_2020 teach the limitations of claim 10. The further limitations of claim 13 are similar in structure and language to those of claim 4. Thus, the rationale for rejection of claim 4 shall apply to the further limitations of claim 13.
Claim 20. Westin_2020, Gatzke_2008, and Wang-yu_2020 teach the limitations of claim 18. The further limitations of claim 20 are similar in structure and language to those of claims 3 and 4. Thus, the rationale for rejection of claims 3 and 4 shall apply to the further limitations of claim 20.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westin_2020 (US 2020/0097624 A1) in view of Wang-yu_2020 (CN 111462837 A) in view of Gatzke_2008 (US 2008/0111813 A1) in view of Dassault_2008 (“CATIA V5 Fundamentals”).
Claim 7. Westin_2020, Gatzke_2008, and Wang-yu_2020 teach the limitations of claim 1. Westin_2020, Gatzke_2008, and Wang-yu_2020 do not teach “translating the one or more extra models within the assembly model.”
Dassault_2008, however, teaches “translating the one or more extra models within the assembly model.” (Slide 52: “Panning enables you to move the model on a plane parallel to the screen.”)
Westin_2020, Gatzke_2008, Wang-yu_2020, and Dassault_2008 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called CAD modeling. Before the effective filling date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Westin_2020, Gatzke_2008, Wang-yu_2020, and Dassault_2008. The rationale for doing so would have been to allow the spacer models of Westin_2020, Gatzke_2008, and Wang-yu_2020 to be moved into user specified positions; further, the CAD modeling system of Gatzke_2008 (CATIA V5) is the modeling system described in Dassault_2008. Therefore, it would have been obvious to on of ordinary skill in the art to allow the spacer models of Westin_2020, Gatzke_2008, and Wang-yu_2020 to be repositioned according to Dassault_2008.
Claim 8. Westin_2020, Gatzke_2008, and Wang-yu_2020 teach the limitations of claim 1. Dassault_2008 further teaches “rotating the one or more extra models within the assembly model.” (Slide 52: “Rotating enables you to turn the model around a point.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
“Abaqus input file format explained”, 2015, SCRIBD.com
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER W LYON whose telephone number is (571)270-0757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:30, Friday 8:30-12:30.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at (571) 272-3652. 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.
/ALEXANDER W LYON/Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights