DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 10/04/2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although
the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to
the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply
as well. Examiner may also include cited interpretations encompassed within parenthesis, e.g. (Examiner’s interpretation), for clarity. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/10/2024 and 11/20/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8, the machine-implemented method of claim 1, recites a “wherein the strength- based parameter”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim 1, from which this claim depends, recites “a strength-based criterion”. Is the “strength-based parameter” referring to the previously recited “strength based criterion” or something different? For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets “strength-based parameter” to be referring to “strength-based criterion”. Applicant may amend or cancel claim accordingly. Clarification is required.
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 recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception (an abstract idea), as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) further do/does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claim(s) under the framework provided in MPEP 2106 and has provided such analysis below.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court
has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
Step 1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category of a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or a Composition of Matter (see MPEP 2106.03);
Step 2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04);
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Step 1:
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per claim 1, the claim recites the limitations of:
optimizing the lattice infill and a shape of the coated structure by iteratively
modifying the lattice infill and the shape of the coated structure and evaluating a strength-based criterion (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) which are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind (e.g. observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. For instance, a person can reasonably modify the lattice infill and the coated structure shape while evaluating a strength-based criterion, with/without the aid of pen and paper. Note: Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Additionally, the limitation may also amount to Mathematical Concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) which is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation.);
generating, using the optimized lattice infill and the optimized shape of the coated structure with the lattice infill, a representation of the model of the coated structure with the lattice infill conforming to the one or more spatial boundary conditions (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably generate (e.g. draw) a representation of the model of the coated structure with the lattice infill conforming to the one or more spatial boundaries.)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
As per claim 1, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception and/or Insignificant Extra Solution Activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
receiving one or more spatial boundary conditions defining constraints for the model of the coated structure (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process.)
initializing a lattice infill defined by respective lattice cells according to the one or more spatial boundary conditions (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation is directed towards mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e. mental process / mathematical concepts) on a computer. Per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”);
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B:
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards insignificant extra-solution activity and/or mere instructions to apply an exception.
Per MPEP 2106.05(g), “the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional.” Per MPEP 2106.05(d), “[t]he courts have recognized the following (i.e. applicable) computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network [ ] ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Also, as mentioned above, per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2 recites, wherein the strength- based criterion corresponds to one or more element failure indices. The additional element elaborates on the strength-based criterion, thus further amounts to Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)/(III). The claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim 3 recites, wherein optimizing the lattice infill and the shape of the coated structure comprises: assigning a material indicator variable corresponding to the shape; and assigning a coating indicator variable corresponding to at least a coating thickness. The additional elements elaborate on optimizing the lattice infill and the shape of the coated structure, thus further amounts to Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)/(III). The claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim 4 recites, wherein at least one of initializing the lattice infill or optimizing the lattice infill comprises representing a geometry of the lattice infill with a characteristic parameter. The additional element elaborates on either initializing the lattice infill, which further amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception MPEP 2106.05(f), or optimizing the lattice infill, which further amounts to Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)/(III). The claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim 5 recites, wherein optimizing the lattice infill and a shape of the coated structure comprises: establishing a held characteristic parameter by holding constant the characteristic parameter based on the geometry of the lattice infill; and establishing, using the held characteristic parameter, an optimized topology of the coated structure with uniform material distribution in the lattice infill. The additional elements elaborate on optimizing the lattice infill and a shape of the coated structure, thus further amounts to Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)/(III). The claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim 6 recites, wherein optimizing the lattice infill and a shape of the coated structure comprises: assigning the characteristic parameter as a variable; and establishing, using the variable, a non-uniform material distribution of the lattice infill. The additional elements elaborate on optimizing the lattice infill and a shape of the coated structure, thus further amounts to Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)/(III). The claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim 7 recites, creating an optimized shape of the coated structure with the lattice infill comprises: determining, using numerical homogenization, a stiffness tensor corresponding to the characteristic parameter; and determining, using numerical homogenization, a macroscopic effective yield stress corresponding to the characteristic parameter. The additional elements further amount to Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)/(III). The claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim 8 recites, wherein the strength- based parameter corresponds to a yield criterion to define a limit of elasticity of the model of the coated structure with the lattice infill. The additional element elaborates on the strength-based criterion (see Examiner’s interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112 section above), thus further amounts to Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)/(III). The claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim 9 recites, wherein the strength- based criterion comprises multiple element failure indices; and wherein the machine-implemented method comprises aggregating, using a p-mean approach, the multiple element failure indices to obtain an aggregated element failure index. The additional elements further amount to Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)/(III). The claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim 10 recites, wherein the lattice infill comprises octet-truss lattice cells. The additional element elaborates on the lattice infill, thus further amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim 11 recites, wherein respective octet-truss lattice cells include a varied microstructure density. The additional element elaborates on the lattice infill, thus further amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim 12 recites, wherein the lattice infill comprises cubic lattice cells. The additional element elaborates on the lattice infill, thus further amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim 13 recites, wherein respective cubic lattice cells include a varied microstructure density. The additional element elaborates on the lattice infill, thus further amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim 14 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more.
Claim 15 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 3 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more.
Claim 16 recites substantially the same subject matter as claims 2 and 4 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more.
Claims 17-19 recite substantially the same subject matter as claims 5-7, respectively, and are rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more.
Claim 20 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 9 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more.
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 set forth in Graham V. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groen, Jeroen P., Jun Wu, and Ole Sigmund. "Homogenization-based stiffness optimization and projection of 2D coated structures with orthotropic infill." Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 349 (2019): 722-742. (hereinafter referred to as “Groen”) in view of Bandara et al. US Patent No. 10635088 B1 (hereinafter referred to as “Bandara”).
Regarding claim 1, Groen discloses A machine-implemented method for establishing optimized parameters defining a model of a coated structure with a lattice infill (“an efficient homogenization-based approach to perform topology
optimization of coated structures with orthotropic infill material.” Groen [Abstract]), the machine-implemented method comprising: receiving one or more spatial boundary conditions defining constraints for the model of the coated structure (“we use the bridge example for which the loads and boundary conditions, including padded domain are shown in Fig. 5 (see below)” Groen [Pg.729 Sec.3]);
PNG
media_image1.png
284
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
initializing a lattice infill defined by respective lattice cells according to the one or more spatial boundary conditions (“To project the infill as a smooth and continuous lattice structure, two mapping functions φ1 and φ2 have to be determined, representing the two orthogonal layers of the sequence of unit-cells” Groen [Pg.733 Sec.4]); .
Groen fails to specifically disclose optimizing the lattice infill and a shape of the coated structure by iteratively modifying the lattice infill and the shape of the coated structure and evaluating a strength-based criterion; and generating, using the optimized lattice infill and the optimized shape of the coated structure with the lattice infill, a representation of the model of the coated structure with the lattice infill conforming to the one or more spatial boundary conditions.
However, Bandara discloses optimizing the lattice infill and a shape of the coated structure by iteratively modifying the lattice infill and the shape of the coated structure and evaluating a strength-based criterion (“iteratively modifying, by the computer aided design program, both a three dimensional topology of a generative model for the object and one or more outer shapes of the three dimensional topology using a generative design process that represents the three dimensional topology of the generative model as one or more boundaries between one or more solid regions and one or more void regions within the design space.” Bandara [Col.2 Ln.30]); and generating, using the optimized lattice infill and the optimized shape of the coated structure with the lattice infill, a representation of the model of the coated structure with the lattice infill conforming to the one or more spatial boundary conditions (“components can be designed that contain an optimized lattice structure within a topology optimized body based on expected structural loading to produce lightweight designs with high stiffness.” Bandara [Col.5 Ln.12]).
Groen and Bandara are analogous art as they both relate to additive manufacturing and methods to optimize structure design. Groen discloses “an efficient homogenization-based approach to perform topology optimization of coated structures with orthotropic infill material [ ] A novel method to adaptively refine the lattice structure is presented” [Abstract]. And Bandara discloses “computer aided design of physical structures using generative design processes, where three dimensional (3D) models of the physical structures are produced to include lattices and hollows” [Abstract]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Groen’s method to include Bandara’s iterative design process and model representation in order to establish “improved topologies and shapes for generative designs that achieve the physical structural requirements for an object to be manufactured from the generative design” Bandara [Col.5 Ln.3].
Regarding claim 3, the machine-implemented method of claim 1, Groen further discloses, wherein optimizing the lattice infill and the shape of the coated structure comprises: assigning a material indicator variable corresponding to the shape; and assigning a coating indicator variable corresponding to at least a coating thickness (“With the properties of the coating and infill known, we can define the interpolation of the density
ρ
and elasticity tensor
E
throughout the design domain. To this end, we use material indicator φ and coating indicator
τ
” Groen [Pg.726 Sec.2.2]. The coating indicator
τ
is interpreted to correspond to a coating thickness because “a minimum feature size of twice the coating thickness, e.g. 2
t
ref” Groen [Pg.725 Sec.2.1.4 P.2]))
Regarding claim 4, the machine-implemented method of claim 1, Groen further discloses, wherein at least one of initializing the lattice infill or optimizing the lattice infill comprises representing a geometry of the lattice infill with a characteristic parameter “As infill we use the square unit-cell with rectangular hole [ ] shown in Fig. 4 (see below).” Groen [Pg.726 Sec.2.2]. Groen’s Fig.4 is interpreted to include a characteristic parameter due to Applicant’s characteristic parameter examples shown in Figs.2 and 3 [Spec. P.0009 and P.0010].)
PNG
media_image2.png
220
588
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, the machine-implemented method of claim 4, Groen further discloses, wherein optimizing the lattice infill and a shape of the coated structure comprises: establishing a held characteristic parameter by holding constant the characteristic parameter based on the geometry of the lattice infill (“To project the infill as a smooth and continuous lattice structure, two mapping functions φ1 and φ2 have to be determined, representing the two orthogonal layers of the sequence of unit-cells [ ] A suitable parameterization of φ1 has to fulfill:
1. φ1 should be constant in the direction perpendicular to the layer normal n1.
2. The spacing between the contour lines of φ1, should be as regular as possible without violating the first requirement.” Groen [Pg.733 Sec.4-4.1]); and
establishing, using the held characteristic parameter, an optimized topology of the coated structure with uniform material distribution in the lattice infill (“It can be seen that values for
J
φ are again within 1% of
J
f
, while a more uniform infill is maintained.” Groen [Pg.737 Sec.5.2]).
Regarding claim 6, the machine-implemented method of claim 4, Groen further discloses, wherein optimizing the lattice infill and a shape of the coated structure comprises: assigning the characteristic parameter as a variable; and establishing, using the variable, a non-uniform material distribution of the lattice infill (“This is the most general optimization problem, which is the problem shown in Eq. (10), with variables
μ
,
a
1 and
a
2 updated using the MMA. This means that contrary to the previous problems, the microstructure (i.e. lattice infill) density (i.e. material distribution) can vary (i.e. non-uniform). To avoid artificially stiff checkerboard-like patterns of infill material, we here need to regularize design vectors
a
1 and
a
2 into
a
1
~
and
a
2
~
describing the physical size of the hole using a density filter with a filter radius just larger than the finite element size.” Groen [Pg.728 Problem 3: Variable microstructure density, variable widths of a hole])
Regarding claim 10, the machine-implemented method of claim 1, Groen fails to specifically disclose, wherein the lattice infill comprises octet-truss lattice cells.
However, Bandara discloses wherein the lattice infill comprises octet-truss lattice cells (“A widely-used lattice in homogenization is the Octet lattice and its analytically computed RVE. A database of numerically computed lattice RVE properties can be built for use in the hybrid topology optimization. Thus, the hybrid topology optimization can combine latticing with level-set based topology optimization using homogenized lattice RVEs.” Bandara [Col.24 Ln.6]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Groen’s method to include octet-truss lattice cells, as Bandera discloses, in order to establish “improved topologies and shapes for generative designs that achieve the physical structural requirements for an object to be manufactured from the generative design” Bandara [Col.5 Ln.3].
Regarding claim 11, the machine-implemented method of claim 10, Groen fails to specifically disclose, wherein respective octet-truss lattice cells include a varied microstructure density.
However, Bandara further discloses wherein respective octet-truss lattice cells include a varied microstructure density. (“After the modifying 405 completes changes to both the three dimensional topology and the one or more outer shapes of the three dimensional topology, a thickness of the beams in the lattice or a density of the lattice is adjusted (i.e. varied)” Bandara [Col.33 Ln.58]. Note: The lattice is interpreted as an octet-truss lattice because “Multiple lattice topology types (see e.g., FIG. 3D) can be used for lattice creation. Each topology type can have a unique structural behavior and can result in different optimal designs when used for optimization of structural components.” Bandara [Col.24 Ln.14]. Note: See FIG.3D for octet-truss lattice.)
Bandara discloses the limitations of claim 11 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Groen as claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, the machine-implemented method of claim 1, Groen fails to specifically disclose, wherein the lattice infill comprises cubic lattice cells.
However, Bandara further discloses, wherein the lattice infill comprises cubic lattice cells (“FIG. 3D shows graphical representations of examples of different lattice topologies 360. For example, the different lattice topologies 360 are shown as unit cells (e.g., cubes of dimensions 1×1×1)” Bandara [Col.20 Ln.65])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Groen’s method to include cubic lattice cells as Bandara discloses, in order to establish “improved topologies and shapes for generative designs that achieve the physical structural requirements for an object to be manufactured from the generative design” Bandara [Col.5 Ln.3].
Regarding claim 13, the machine-implemented method of claim 12, Groen fails to specifically disclose, wherein respective cubic lattice cells include a varied microstructure density.
However, Bandara further discloses wherein respective cubic lattice cells include a varied microstructure density (“After the modifying 405 completes changes to both the three dimensional topology and the one or more outer shapes of the three dimensional topology, a thickness of the beams in the lattice or a density of the lattice is adjusted (i.e. varied)” Bandara [Col.33 Ln.58]. Note: The lattice is interpreted to include cubic lattice cells because “Multiple lattice topology types (see e.g., FIG. 3D) can be used for lattice creation. Each topology type can have a unique structural behavior and can result in different optimal designs when used for optimization of structural components.” Bandara [Col.24 Ln.14]. Note: See FIG.3D 360 for cubic lattice cells.)
Bandara discloses the limitations of claim 13 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Groen as claim 12.
Claim 14 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 3 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 2, 7-9 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groen, Jeroen P., Jun Wu, and Ole Sigmund. "Homogenization-based stiffness optimization and projection of 2D coated structures with orthotropic infill." Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 349 (2019): 722-742. (hereinafter referred to as “Groen”) in view of Bandara et al. US Patent No. 10635088 B1 (hereinafter referred to as “Bandara”), in further view of Fernandes, Rossana R., and Ali Y. Tamijani. "Design optimization of lattice structures with stress constraints." Materials & Design 210 (2021): 110026. (hereinafter referred to as “Fernandes”).
Regarding claim 2, the machine-implemented method of claim 1, Groen and Bandara fail to specifically disclose, wherein the strength-based criterion corresponds to one or more element failure indices.
However, Fernandes discloses wherein the strength-based criterion corresponds to one or more element failure indices (“The stiffness matrix (
C
-
θ), density (ρ), and failure index (
F
re) are updated using the material indicator variable” Fernandes [Pg.4 Sec.3]).
Fernandes is analogous art as it relates to additive manufacturing and design optimization. Fernandes discloses “framework used to perform topology and orientation
(morphology) optimization of lattice structures subject to stress constraints. The effective stiffnesses and yield stresses of a unit cell are obtained using numerical homogenization and validated experimentally. Due to the orthotropic behavior of the unit cell, the modified Hill’s yield criterion is used to describe the lattice strength. The effective orthotropic properties are implemented via macrostructure topology optimization to further improve the lattice structure stiffness.” [Abstract]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods of Groen/Bandara to include element failure indices, as Fernandes discloses, in order “to ensure the fabrication feasibility of the optimized lattice structure” Fernandes [Abstract].
Regarding claim 7, the machine-implemented method of claim 4, Groen and Bandara fail to specifically disclose, creating an optimized shape of the coated structure with the lattice infill comprises: determining, using numerical homogenization, a stiffness tensor corresponding to the characteristic parameter; and determining, using numerical homogenization, a macroscopic effective yield stress corresponding to the characteristic parameter.
However, the analogous art of Fernandes discloses determining, using numerical homogenization, a stiffness tensor corresponding to the characteristic parameter (“The homogenized stiffness tensor (
C
-
) is found via numerical homogenization [16–18] over a representative volume element (RVE)” Fernandes [Pg.3 Col.1 P.1]); and determining, using numerical homogenization, a macroscopic effective yield stress corresponding to the characteristic parameter (“The effective yield stresses (
σ
Υ
¯
) are used in the macroscopic modified Hill’s yield criterion for each element” Fernandes [Pg.4 Col.1 P.3])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods of Groen/Bandara to include a stiffness tensor and a macroscopic effective yield stress, as Fernandes discloses, in order “to ensure the fabrication feasibility of the optimized lattice structure” Fernandes [Abstract].
Regarding claim 8, the machine-implemented method of claim 1, Groen and Bandara fail to specifically disclose wherein the strength-based parameter corresponds to a yield criterion to define a limit of elasticity of the model of the coated structure with the lattice infill.
However, Fernandes discloses wherein the strength-based parameter corresponds to a yield criterion to define a limit of elasticity of the model of the coated structure with the lattice infill (“The effective yield stresses (
σ
Υ
¯
) are used in the macroscopic modified Hill’s yield criterion for each element [ ] The effective uniaxial, shear, and hydrostatic yield strengths (
σ
11
-
Υ
,
σ
22
-
Υ
, and
σ
12
-
Υ
are,
σ
44
-
Υ
) were found using Eq. (4).
σ
33
-
Υ
is obtained from
m
i
n
(
σ
11
-
Υ
,
σ
22
-
Υ
). The yield criterion in Eq. (6) is developed in the principal axes of anisotropy. The stresses and strains in the reference axes (
σ
θ
-
and
ε
θ
-
) are obtained using the transformation matrix (R).” Fernandes [Pg.4 Col.1 P.3])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods of Groen/Bandara to include Fernandes’ strength-based parameter in order “to ensure the fabrication feasibility of the optimized lattice structure” Fernandes [Abstract].
Regarding claim 9, the machine-implemented method of claim 1, Groen and Bandara fail to specifically disclose, wherein the strength-based criterion comprises multiple element failure indices; and wherein the machine-implemented method comprises aggregating, using a p-mean approach, the multiple element failure indices to obtain an aggregated element failure index.
However, Fernandes discloses wherein the strength-based criterion comprises multiple element failure indices; and wherein the machine-implemented method comprises aggregating, using a p-mean approach, the multiple element failure indices to obtain an aggregated element failure index (“elements in the design domain are sorted based on their failure indexes. Then, the sorted elements are placed in N groups. The failure indexes of the elements in each group are aggregated into a single value using a p-mean function” Fernandes [Pg.5 Col.1]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods of Groen/Bandara to include multiple failure indices and an aggregated element failure index, as Fernandes discloses, in order “to ensure the fabrication feasibility of the optimized lattice structure” Fernandes [Abstract].
Claim 16 recites substantially the same subject matter as claims 2 and 4 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 5 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 18 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 6 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 19 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 9 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon is
considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bandara et al. (Macrostructure Topology Generation With Disparate Physical Simulation For Computer Aided Design And Manufacturing – US Pat. No 11947334 B2). “Methods, systems, and apparatus, including medium-encoded computer program products, for computer aided design of physical structures using generative design processes, where three dimensional (3D) models of the physical structures can be produced to include lattices, hollows, holes, and combinations thereof” [Abstract]
Harris et al. (Generative Design Shape Optimization With Damage Prevention Over Loading Cycles For Computer Aided Design And Manufacturing – US Pat. No. 11321508 B2). “Methods, systems, and apparatus, including medium-encoded computer program products, for computer aided design of physical structures using generative design processes.” [Abstract]
Papapetrou, Vasileios S., Chitrang Patel, and Ali Y. Tamijani. "Stiffness-based optimization framework for the topology and fiber paths of continuous fiber composites." Composites Part B: Engineering 183 (2020): 107681. “a novel framework for the optimized topology and the fiber paths in order to create variable stiffness designs. The optimized distribution of the material is achieved by two different methods: a density-based method and a level-set method for orthotropic materials.” [Abstract]
Deshpande, Vikram S., Norman A. Fleck, and Michael F. Ashby. "Effective properties of the octet-truss lattice material." Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 49.8 (2001): 1747-1769. “The effective mechanical properties of the octet-truss lattice material have been investigated through analytical and FE calculations” [Pg.768 Sec.6].
Larsen, S. D., O. Sigmund, and J. P. Groen. "Optimal truss and frame design from projected homogenization-based topology optimization: SD Larsen et al." Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 57.4 (2018): 1461-1474. “a novel method to obtain a near-optimal frame structure, based on the solution of a
homogenization-based topology optimization model.” [Abstract]
García-Dominguez, Amabel, Juan Claver, and Miguel A. Sebastián. "Optimization methodology for additive manufacturing of customized parts by fused deposition modeling (FDM). Application to a shoe heel." Polymers 12.9 (2020): 2119. “a methodology designed to integrate additive manufacturing,
parametric design and optimization within a continuous workflow is shown” [Pg.2 P.4]
Wang, Xiaoyang, et al. "Optimization of graded filleted lattice structures subject to yield and buckling constraints." Materials & Design 206 (2021): 109746. “a new optimization framework is developed for the optimal design of graded lattice structures, innovatively integrating fillet designs as well as yield and elastic buckling constraints. Body-centred-cubic (BCC) lattices and primitive-cubic (PC) lattices are adopted in this study” [Abstract]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anthony Chavez whose telephone number is (571) 272-1036. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104 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.
/ANTHONY CHAVEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights