DETAILED ACTION
The following is an initial Office Action upon examination of the above-identified application on the merits. Claims 1-10 are pending in this application.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The examiner has considered the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 25 June 2024 and 5 December 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s), in part, constructing a model of a virtual servo punch press and a model of a virtual workpiece and importing the models into a simulation software; setting structural parameters and material parameters of the virtual servo punch press and the virtual workpiece; simulating dynamic characteristics of the virtual servo punch press and stamping characteristics of the virtual workpiece by the simulation software to establish a simulated stamping process for press-forming the virtual workpiece by the virtual servo punch press; driving a servo punch press by a control core and press-forming a workpiece, comparing the step of press-forming the workpiece with the simulated stamping process through a simulated virtual and real comparison program to generate a comparison result; and analyzing an actual motion curve of the servo punch press based on the comparison result to optimize the servo punch press. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims are directed to abstract ideas of mathematical concepts (constructing a model of a virtual servo punch press and a model of a virtual workpiece and importing the models into a simulation software; simulating dynamic characteristics of the virtual servo punch press and stamping characteristics of the virtual workpiece by the simulation software to establish a simulated stamping process for press-forming the virtual workpiece by the virtual servo punch press; comparing the step of press-forming the workpiece with the simulated stamping process through a simulated virtual and real comparison program to generate a comparison result; and analyzing an actual motion curve of the servo punch press based on the comparison result to optimize the servo punch press). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claims are directed to abstract ideas and extra-solution activities that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as mere data gathering, insignificant application, and/or mere instructions to apply a judicial exception.
The following is an analysis based on 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Step 1, Statutory Category?
Claims 1-10 are directed to an electromechanical integration analysis and simulation method of a servo punch press kinematic mechanism.
Claims 1-10 are directed to at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One, Judicial Exception Recited?
Claims 1-10 are directed to abstract ideas of mathematical concepts (constructing a model of a virtual servo punch press and a model of a virtual workpiece and importing the models into a simulation software; simulating dynamic characteristics of the virtual servo punch press and stamping characteristics of the virtual workpiece by the simulation software to establish a simulated stamping process for press-forming the virtual workpiece by the virtual servo punch press; comparing the step of press-forming the workpiece with the simulated stamping process through a simulated virtual and real comparison program to generate a comparison result; and analyzing an actual motion curve of the servo punch press based on the comparison result to optimize the servo punch press).
As per claim 1, this claim recites the limitations of “constructing a model of a virtual servo punch press and a model of a virtual workpiece and importing the models into a simulation software; simulating dynamic characteristics of the virtual servo punch press and stamping characteristics of the virtual workpiece by the simulation software to establish a simulated stamping process for press-forming the virtual workpiece by the virtual servo punch press; comparing the step of press-forming the workpiece with the simulated stamping process through a simulated virtual and real comparison program to generate a comparison result; and analyzing an actual motion curve of the servo punch press based on the comparison result to optimize the servo punch press.” As drafted, these limitations encompass mathematical concepts. Mathematical concepts cover mathematical relationships and mathematical formulas or equations.
As per claim 2, this claim recites the limitations of “a servo punch press loop control simulation, a servo punch press dynamics simulation, and a servo punch press formation dynamics simulation.” As drafted, these limitations encompass mathematical concepts. Mathematical concepts cover mathematical relationships and mathematical formulas or equations.
As per claim 3, this claim recites the limitations of “analyzing the structural parameters and the material parameters by an optimization process module to obtain optimal parameters for the simulated stamping process.” As drafted, these limitations encompass mathematical concepts. Mathematical concepts cover mathematical relationships and mathematical formulas or equations.
As per claim 4, this claim recites the limitations of “integrating the simulation software and the optimization process module through a rapid analysis interface.” As drafted, these limitations encompass mathematical concepts. Mathematical concepts cover mathematical relationships and mathematical formulas or equations.
As per claim 6, this claim recites the limitations of “in the simulated virtual and real comparison program, the simulated motion curve is verified against the actual motion curve.” As drafted, these limitations encompass mathematical concepts. Mathematical concepts cover mathematical relationships and mathematical formulas or equations.
As per claim 7, this claim recites the limitations of “the simulated virtual and real comparison program comprises a servo motion curve simulation analysis and a motion displacement trajectory analysis.” As drafted, these limitations encompass mathematical concepts. Mathematical concepts cover mathematical relationships and mathematical formulas or equations.
As per claim 8, this claim recites the limitations of “an automation design module analyzing the actual motion curve of the servo punch press based on the comparison result to assist in improving the dynamic characteristics of the servo punch press.” As drafted, these limitations encompass mathematical concepts. Mathematical concepts cover mathematical relationships and mathematical formulas or equations.
As per claim 9, this claim recites the limitations of “a topology optimization module optimizing the servo punch press based on the comparison result.” As drafted, these limitations encompass mathematical concepts. Mathematical concepts cover mathematical relationships and mathematical formulas or equations.
As per claim 10, this claim recites the limitations of “the simulation software analyzes the virtual workpiece and the virtual servo punch press by applying a finite element method.” As drafted, these limitations encompass mathematical concepts. Mathematical concepts cover mathematical relationships and mathematical formulas or equations.
Claim 5 further elaborate upon the recited abstract ideas in claim 4.
Claims 1-10 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1-10 are directed to abstract ideas (mathematical concepts).
Step 2A, Prong Two, Integrated into a Practical Application?
The claims recite the following additional limitations:
As per claims 1-10, these claims similarly recite the limitation of “setting structural parameters and material parameters of the virtual servo punch press and the virtual workpiece and driving a servo punch press by a control core and press-forming a workpiece.” As drafted, these limitations encompass no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional elements recite insignificant extra-solution activity as pre-solution data gathering and post solution data outputting and do not provide integration into a practical application. The additional claim limitations, claim elements together and claims in their entirety do not provide integration into a practical application. The additional claim limitations, claim elements together and claims in their entirety do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The concept described in the claim(s) is not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract ideas. As such, the description in the claims describes the concept identified as an abstract idea (data gathering, data outputting and data transmission). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1-10 do not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept (Significantly More)?
When considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements and elements of claims 1-10 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. The additional elements of outlined in Step 2A performing functions as designed simply accomplish execution of the abstract ideas. The additional limitations identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above are carried over and they also do not provide significantly more.
As per claims 1-10, these claims similarly recite the limitation of “constructing a model of a virtual servo punch press and a model of a virtual workpiece and importing the models into a simulation software; setting structural parameters and material parameters of the virtual servo punch press and the virtual workpiece; driving a servo punch press by a control core and press-forming a workpiece; and analyzing an actual motion curve of the servo punch press based on the comparison result to optimize the servo punch press.” As drafted, these limitations encompass insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g), Courts have held found mere data gathering and insignificant application to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 1-10 are therefore drawn to ineligible subject matter as they are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to rapid simulation analysis in general:
CN 117436255 A to DENG et al.
CN 117146729 B to ZU et al.
CN 115583069 B to WEI et al.
CN 110625615 B to ZHOU et al.
CN 108563826 A to QIU et al.
CN 104298812 B to HUANG et al.
CN 101248398 B to DARR et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Crystal J Barnes-Bullock whose telephone number is (571)272-3679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/CRYSTAL J BARNES-BULLOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117 23 January 2026