DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 13-31 are presented for examination. Claims 1-12 are canceled.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/12/24 was considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 13-20 and 22-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Specifically, independent claim 13 and 22 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.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a method (A method for dimensioning a receiving device for use in an industrial process). which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
The limitations “simulating control of the industrial process by a virtual
controller”, etc. The limitations above, as drafted, is a process or function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. This process is a mental process as described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), because the recited processing is simple enough to be practically performed in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The claim further recites “determining a dynamic process variable based on the dynamic control variable; dimensioning the receiving device by taking into account the determined dynamic process variable” which are directed to insignificant extra‐solution activities, specifically mere data processing, and necessary outputting. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are thus insignificant extra‐solution activities. When viewed individually or on combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Do the limitations add elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the limitations do not add elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As recited above, the additional elements “outputting a dynamic control variable based on the simulation of the virtual controller” amount to insignificant extra‐solution activities, specifically mere data processing, and necessary outputting. These additional elements, when considered separately or in combination, are well‐understood, routine and conventional activities in the field (as shown in the court case, mere data gathering is considered routine and conventional activities. See In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196‐97 (CCPA 1982)) and do not add inventive concept into the claim.
Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 14-20 and 22-31:
Dependent claims 14-20 and 23-31, they depend on claims 1 and 22, therefore recite the same abstract idea and additional elements of claims 1 and 22. The claims 14-20 and 23-31 recited other new limitations but they too can be practically performed in human’s mind hence are mental processes based abstract idea. Please note that a narrower abstract idea is still an abstract idea as in this case since the limitations of the claim 14-20 and 23-31 are more narrowing the abstract idea of the claims 1 and 22. Therefore, the claims 14-20 and 23-31 fail to provide a practical application and an inventive step. Furthermore, the claims 14-20 and 23-31 do not contain additional limitations that integrate the exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exception. The claims 14-20 and 23-31 are not patent eligible.
7. Examiner's note: To qualify as a § 101 statutory process, the claim should positively recite the particular machine to which it is tied, for example by identifying the apparatus that accomplishes the method steps, or positively recite the subject matter that is being transformed, for example by identifying the material that is being changed to a different state.
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 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 13-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siber et al. (Siber)1, “Light construction of power lathe chucks” in view of Hamann et al. (Hamann), DE 10360530 A12.
As per claim 13, Siber teaches a method for dimensioning a receiving device for use in an industrial process [pages 1-2, section “High stiffness at low mass”], the method comprising:
dimensioning the receiving device by taking into account the determined dynamic process variable [page 2, section “Arched structures below jaws”; page 3, section “Multi-objective optimization”] .
Siber fails to teach of simulating control of the industrial process by a virtual controller; outputting a dynamic control variable based on the simulation of the virtual controller; determining a dynamic process variable based on the dynamic control variables.
Hamman teaches of simulating control of the industrial process by a virtual controller [English translation; para 10, 11]; outputting a dynamic control variable based on the simulation of the virtual controller; determining a dynamic process variable based on the dynamic control variables [English translation, para 6].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention to combine the teachings of Siber and Hamman because they both disclose a simulation system, the specify teachings of Hamman stated above would have further enhanced the performance and functionality of Siber system to obtain predictable results to perform simulation provide reliable figures.
Siber teaches:
High Stiffness at Low Mass
The aim of the specialists at SCHUNK competence center for turning technology and stationary workholding in Mengen was the improvement of the energy management in accordance with DIN EN ISO 50001. They wanted to develop a clamping device with low mass or mass inertia in order to minimize the energy and duration required for acceleration. However, the basic clamping function of the chuck – measured in terms of stiffness and variability - should be fully maintained, if possible even increased. Also the desired radial and axial run-out accuracy had to be guaranteed. In this case, the rough structure of the clamping device components was determined with topology optimization
on the basis of the respective force flow. Using the resulting parameter optimization, dimensions were then varied to identify an optimal geometrical structure. For final optimization, e.g. of the jaw guidance, a suitable geometric parameterization is important, since the topology optimization does not allow a detailed depiction of the contact areas. In parameter optimization, lift-off and non-linear contacts of the entire chuck assembly can also be modeled and simulated. The properties of the optimized clamping device could be subsequently evaluated by FE analyses and compared with the previously manufactured designs.
Arched structures below jaws
" In ANSYS, we defined an initial model for topology optimization including the necessary constraints such as forces and bearings,” explains Mathias Siber, who used the project for his master’s thesis. “The objective function of the optimization was the maximization of the stiffness, with mass restriction at 70, 50, and 30 percent of the initial mass.” In addition, the existing functional areas were marked to exclude them from optimization (non-design areas) because they should remain in their original shape. The optimization algorithm then determined the basic geometrical shape according to the mechanical loads and specified mass restrictions. In the chuck body, arched structures below the jaw guide, circular recesses between the guideways and an overall conical chuck contour were created. “The topology optimization significantly reduced the weight of the lathe chuck, which also has a positive effect regarding the load on the spindle bearings”, stated Philipp Schräder, Head of Development Clamping Technology. “In addition, we registered the vault structure resulting from the topology optimization as a design patent at the German Patent and Trademark Office in order to protect it as far as possible from unauthorized copying.”
Multi-Objective Optimization Facilitates the Design Process
In this case, parameters are optimized towards the objective of less lifting at the lowest base jaw mass. The result of this multi-objective optimization is an optimal depth width
ratio of 2:3 for the base jaw guidance. This allows a very precise examination of the product behavior with different geometries in order to create a “robust” design. The
robustness of the final design was ensured by means of suitable constraints. While the topology optimization identified the lightest chuck design from the force flow, the parameter optimization ensured maximum stiffness and reduced notch stresses
for the longest possible chuck life. In addition, a numerical stress analysis was conducted according to FKM guidelines.
Hamman teaches:
[0004] In general terms, during the startup of the machine, a parameter set is specified and tested during test operation of the machine. The parameter set comprises all setting parameters of the numerical controller and all setting parameters of the drive controller. The parameter setting is often performed iteratively in that the setting
of specific parameters is optimized, i.e. varied, until a startup specification is fulfilled. The conventional procedure for starting up a tool or production machine is described in detail in the document „ Sinumerik 840D/Simodrive 611 digital & ndesh; Start-up Instructions", Issue 11.02, 2002, Siemens AG, Automatisierung und Drivetechnik, Erlangen, Order Number: 6FC5297-6AB10-0AP2.
[0006] On the other hand, the simulation of machine parts or machine functions, but also of overall machines, has recently become more and more prevalent in the advance of machine development. The simulation must simulate both the mechanical behavior of the machine, the behavior of the drives and the function of the controller. In this way, the time behavior of the mechanics, the drives and the numerical control, e.g. for the simulation of NC (numerical control) machining or PLC (programmable logic control) controlled movements(such as a tool change) can be modeled with high precision.
[0010] Thereafter, the startup is not performed on the real machine as before, but on a numerical model tailored to the machine, which is referred to below as simulator. In other words, a simulator in this sense is a „ virtual machine", i.e. a device with which the behavior of the real machine can be simulated using mathematical or physical model relationships. Such a simulator is implemented in particular as a computer or ensemble of computers with corresponding software installed thereon.
[0011] The simulator includes a numerical controller identical or equivalent to the controller of the real machine. Accordingly, all parameters that can also be set on the real machine can be predefined for the simulator. This is utilized according to the invention in that, during a virtual startup, a parameter set (containing at least one parameter) is specified to the simulator. By operating the simulator, i.e. by simulation, the effect of the predefined parameter setting on the working behavior of the virtual machine is now tested and checked with regard to the fulfilment of a predefined startup specification. The check can be performed both in the time range and in the frequency range. In practice, the set of parameters typically includes a plurality of parameters, each of which is optimized.
As per claim 14, Siber teaches the receiving device is dimensioned by carrying out a FEM simulation, which is fed with the determined dynamic process variable [pages 1-2, sections “High stiffness at low mass”, “Arched structures below jaws”].
As per claim 15, Siber teaches the dynamic process variable comprises a force and/or a torque acting on a workpiece from the receiving device and taken into account
in an FEM simulation of the industrial process [pages 1-2, sections “High stiffness at low mass”, “Arched structures below jaws”].
As per claim 16, Siber teaches the receiving device is embodied as a clamping device, the method further comprising determining a requisite clamping force by FEM
simulation, with the clamping device being dimensioned by taking into account the requisite clamping force [pages 1-2, sections “High stiffness at low mass”, “Arched structures below jaws”].
As per claim 17, Siber teaches a critical machining step of the industrial process is simulated during the dimensioning of the receiving device [page 1, first paragraph; page 2, section “Arched structures below jaws”].
As per claim 18, Siber teaches the industrial process comprises a cutting method, the method further comprising carrying out a cutting simulation in addition to
the dimensioning of the receiving device [page 1, first paragraph; page 2, section “Arched structures below jaws”].
As per claim 19, Hamann teaches of simulating static and dynamic loads of the receiving device during the dimensioning of the receiving device [English translation, para 4, 6].
As per claim 20, Siber teaches of optimizing a geometry of the receiving device based on the static and dynamic loads [page 2, section “Arched structures below jaws”].
As per claim 21, Siber teaches of manufacturing a receiving device for use
in an industrial process [page 1, first paragraph], the method comprising: dimensioning the receiving device by a method as set forth in claim 13; transmitting data relating to the dimensioning of the receiving device to a machine tool; and manufacturing the receiving device by the machine tool [pages 1-2, section “High stiffness at low mass”].
As to claims 22-30, basically are the corresponding elements that are carried out the method of operating step in claims 13-20. Accordingly, claims 22-30 are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claims 13-20.
As per claim 31, directed to a computer-readable storage medium storing the instructions to perform the method of steps executed by the system as set forth in claim 13. Therefore, it is rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove.
10. Examiner's note: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in 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. MPEP 2141.02 VI: “PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS."
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Chaisy et al., KR 20220164749, discloses a digital twin of the CNC machining machine, comprising a simulator and an interface module connecting the training
control console to the simulator, the interface module is configured to transmit commands generated by the trainee using the training control console to the simulator, and the simulator controls the effects of the commands sent from the CNC machine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN CAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3664. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00 am-3:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571-272-9. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CHUN CAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
T a
1 Siber is cited by applicant.
2 Hamann is cited by applicant.