Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 1-20 are currently presented for Examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
3. The amendment filed on 11/10/2025 has been entered and considered by the examiner. By the amendment, claims 9-14 are amended. In view of amendment made, the previous 112(b)(d) rejection for claims 9-14 is withdrawn. The prior art rejection is still maintained in view of the amendments made. See office action.
Applicant argument 101 rejection
Applicant arguments
The Office Action contends that these limitations "generates a mesh of a master region in a geometry representing a physical structure for a simulation of the physical structure, where the master region is bounded between a first boundary and a second boundary as matching boundaries of the mesh, the master region representing a periodic pattern of the geometry" involves a combination of both mathematical concepts and mental processes. Thus, limitations do not recite any mathematical relationships, math equations, or math calculations, and is improperly construed as math concepts. Nor does mesh generation constitute a mental process such as observation, evaluation, or judgment. Similarly, the limitations involving splitting and assembling the mesh cannot be practically performed by the human mind. Even a skilled artisan could not manually split a mesh along edges and assemble portions with a conformal interface for simulation. These operations require a data processing system and specialized meshing. Thus, claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea grouping and is patent subject matter eligible.
Examiner response
Applicant argues the claim does not recite mathematical concepts and mental processes is not persuasive. The recited “mesh,” “boundaries,” “periodic pattern,” “splitting along edges,” and “assembling according to a conformal interface” inherently require mathematical relationships, geometric calculations, and spatial transformations. Under the 2019 PEG, operations relying on geometric relationships fall under mathematical concepts even if equations are not explicitly recited. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(I) Also, determining regions, edges, boundaries, and assembly relationships constitutes data analysis/organization, which falls within the “mental processes” grouping. Whether a human could practically perform the steps at scale is irrelevant; the test is whether the type of reasoning is human-conceptual. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) Applicant asserts the claims cannot be performed manually due to large data size is not persuasive. Automation of tasks that are conceptually mental does not remove them from the abstract-idea category. Data size or computational impracticality is not the legal standard.
Applicant arguments
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that claim 1 recites subj ect matter within an abstract idea grouping, the claim integrates any alleged judicial exception into a specific and practical application. The claimed invention applies and uses the alleged exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limits beyond the exception itself. For example, the system generates a mesh of a master region bounded by first and second matching boundaries, then uses those boundaries to split the mesh into a static portion and a floating portion along an arbitrary matching boundary. The system further assembles these portions into an assembled mesh according to a conformal interface of the matching boundaries. This integration meaningfully limits the scope of the invention to a concrete technological solution for mesh generation and assembly, rather than claiming the abstract idea in isolation.
Examiner response
Applicant argues the claim integrates any exception into a practical application is not persuasive. The steps of generating, splitting, and assembling mesh data represent generic computer implementation of abstract mathematical/organizational operations. No improvement to computer technology, processor operation, memory structure, or mesh-processing mechanisms is recited. Claim merely instructs a generic processor to execute the abstract idea. See Alice; MPEP §2106.05(a), (c), (e) The claim provides result-oriented outcomes (e.g., “assemble according to a conformal interface”) without reciting specific technical means for achieving them. The claim does not define any improved algorithm, data structure, or computer operation.
Applicant arguments
Moreover, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are not directed to an "abstract idea" as identified by the Federal Circuit in recent decisions known as Enfish, Bascom, and McRo each of which reversed Alice invalidations. As such, these decisions immediately provide a practical framework of distinguishing an abstract idea, alongside a 2014 Federal Circuit decision known as DDR, which held that software can be patent-eligible, even if there is not a technical improvement, if it is "necessarily rooted in computer technology. Lastly, each of these limitations is necessarily rooted in mesh generation technology and is utilized to carry out different limitations, and collectively achieves a concrete result. Claim 1, therefore, is directed to at least an inventive concept and is patent-eligible.
Examiner response
Applicant cites Enfish, Bascom, and McRo which is not persuasive. Enfish applies where the claim improves computer architecture or operation. Present claims do not improve databases, memory structures, or computation; they manipulate abstract geometric data. No self-referential or improved data structure is claimed. Bascom requires a non-conventional arrangement of computer components. Claims recite only a generic processor performing routine geometry-processing steps. No specialized architecture or ordered combination yielding a technical improvement is shown. McRo’s claims recited specific rules producing improvements in animation. The present claims do not recite specific rules or constraints—only high-level geometric results. The claims lack the technical specificity required under McRo. Applicant also cites DDR which is not persuasive. DDR applies where the problem is “rooted in computer technology.” The present claims manipulate geometric/mesh data, which is an abstract mathematical activity, not a computer-rooted technological problem. No internet-architecture or system-structural improvement is present. Applicant argues the claims recite significantly more (inventive concept) which is not persuasive. The additional elements are generic computer functions well-understood in the mesh-generation and simulation arts. Applicant provides no evidence that the claimed operations are non-conventional. Generic computer implementation does not satisfy Step 2B. See Alice, Berkheimer, MPEP §2106.05.
Applicant argument 103 rejection
Applicant arguments
Claim limitation “assembling the static portion and the floating portion according to a conformal interface of the matching boundaries of the first boundary and the second boundary into an assembled mesh bounded by the arbitrary matching boundary.” (emphasis added). It is respectfully submitted that Tani and Masayuki do not disclose the above emphasized claim limitations. Masayuki relates to the generation of a mesh model by finding symmetries in the analytic model, and generating a partial mesh using dividing planes to generate a period of the analytic model. Generating only partial model reduces the mesh generation time. Masayuki, abstract. For example, although the Office Action acknowledges that Tani fails to disclose the emphasized features "assembling the static portion and the floating portion according to a conformal interface of the matching boundaries of the first boundary and the second boundary into an assembled mesh bounded by the arbitrary matching boundary", the Office Action contends that paragraphs 58-59 of Masayuki disclose these features. (Office Action, p. 12-13).
Paragraphs 58-59 of Masayuki, however, only discloses the generation of a dividing plane 251 (as shown in Fig. 23) for the analysis model 220 in Fig. 22a-b, where the dividing plane 251 is set at the middle of two blades of model 220 so not to cut through the blades. More specifically, analysis model 220 has a blade with surface 221 and a back surface 222, and another blade with surface 223 and back surface 224. For the surface 221, Masayuki discloses its boundaries are used to form a dividing plane. Here, the system of Masayuki finds the line segments 225 and 227 being the axial line segments, and line segments 226 and 228 being the circumferential line segments for surface 221. Masayuki, para. 58-59. Next, as shown in Fig. 22b, the line segments 225 and 227 being the axial line segments are used to create the split surface 230, then the surface 231 is generated to extend the split surface 230 outside of line segments 226 and 228. Masayuki, para. 58-59. The dividing surface 240 in Fig. 22b is then generated from the surface 231. Fig. 23 shows the resultant dividing plane 251 that is in the middle of the two blades so not to cut through the blades. Here, finding the dividing plane 251 or dividing surfaces 230 so not to cut through the blades of analytic model 23 is for the purpose of dividing up the analytic model 220 for partial meshing. The dividing plane 251 or dividing surface 230, however, is silent regarding an assembled mesh boundary with a conformal interface. That is, the cited content in paragraphs 58-59 of Masayuki fails to disclose the features "assembling the static portion and the floating portion according to a conformal interface of the matching boundaries of the first boundary and the second boundary into an assembled mesh bounded by the arbitrary matching boundary" as recited in claim 1. Thus, Masayuki fails to disclose at least these features. Shen fails to cure the deficiencies of Tani and Masayuki. Shen is cited for features unrelated to the above emphasized limitations. Therefore, in view of above, Applicants respectfully submit that claim 1 is patentable over the cited references.
Examiner response
Applicant arguments are based on misinterpretations of the cited reference and fails to rebut the prime facie case of obviousness. Applicant argues that Masayuki’s diving plane 251 does not address assembling mesh regions. This is irrelevant and misdirected. Masayuki is cited only for teaching a master region bounded between first and second matching boundaries. Tani explicitly teaches two corresponding mesh boundaries -the stator-side mesh surface and the rotor-side mesh surface-each equally divided and composed of elements of mutually equal size. (See Tani para 1, 22 and fig 1(a)-1(e)). Also, Masayuki cited specially for its explicit disclosure of matching boundaries-not for conformal assembly. Although Masayuki identifies the motivation (avoid cutting blades), ¶¶58–59 and fig 22a expressly teach determining matching boundary curves (225–228), generating a split surface (230), extending it to form surface (231), and creating a dividing surface (240/251). These surfaces are created from the extracted boundary curves, which necessarily serve as matching boundaries for the two mesh regions (the divided halves). Applicant’s attempt to fail Masayuki for not teaching conformal assembly misrepresents the structure of the combination rejection. Tani supplies the assembly; Masayuki supplies the matched boundary definition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
4. 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 non-statutory subject matter. These claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1) Is the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims: 15-20 is directed to system or machine that falls on one of statutory category.
Claim: 8-14 is directed to method or process that falls on one of statutory category.
Claim 1-7 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable tangible recording medium, which falls into
manufacture.
Claim 1, 8 and 15
Step 2A prong 1
generating a mesh of a master region in a geometry representing a physical structure for a simulation of the physical structure, wherein the master region is bounded between a first boundary and a second boundary as matching boundaries of the mesh, the master region representing a periodic pattern of the geometry; (The process of generating a mesh of a master region representing a periodic pattern for simulating a physical structure involves a combination of both mathematical concepts and mental processes/abstract ideas: This involves observing and recognizing the repeating elements or features within the geometry. Selecting the boundaries of the repeating unit to represent the overall periodic structure. Understanding the geometric shape of the master region, its boundaries, and how the repeating pattern translates across the geometry through mathematical relationship)
splitting the mesh of the master region along mesh edges between the first boundary and the second boundary, the mesh split into a static portion and a floating portion along an arbitrary matching boundary according to the mesh edges; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The act of "splitting" and creating "static" and "floating" portions based on boundaries and mesh edges. This could be seen as an action performable in the human mind, even with the aid of tools like paper and pencil or generic computer software, and therefore falls within the "mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas.) and
assembling the static portion and the floating portion according to a conformal interface of the matching boundaries of the first boundary and the second boundary into an assembled mesh bounded by the arbitrary matching boundary. (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Designer could conceptually envision joining two parts along an interface, or even sketch it out)
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing executable program instructions which when executed by a data processing system in claim 1, a computer implemented method in claim 8 and a system, comprising: a memory to store a geometry representing a physical structure for a simulation of the physical structure; and one or more processors in claim 15 are amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. (MPEP 2106.05(f); Therefore, claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing executable program instructions which when executed by a data processing system in claim 1, a computer implemented method in claim 8 and a system, comprising: a memory to store a geometry representing a physical structure for a simulation of the physical structure; and one or more processors in claim 15 are amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. (MPEP 2106.05(f); Therefore, claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to abstract idea.
Claim 2, 9 and 16 further recites wherein the assembled mesh is between a first arbitrary boundary and a second arbitrary boundary, and wherein the first arbitrary boundary and the second arbitrary boundary have a same shape of the arbitrary matching boundary. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3, 10 and 17 further recites dividing the mesh of the master region into the static portion and the floating portion along the arbitrary matching boundary. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4, 11 and 18 further recites wherein splitting the mesh includes generating a first mesh of a first interior region of the master region, and the method further comprising partitioning the generated first mesh of the first interior region of the master region into the static portion and the floating portion. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5 and 12 further recites identifying a second interior region of an assembled region; and generating a second mesh of the second interior region. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6, 13 and 19 further recites wherein generating the mesh of the master region comprises: identifying a plurality of cuts through a default master region; and determining a minimum geometry intersection of the plurality of cuts through the default master region. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7, 14 and 20 further recites wherein the arbitrary matching boundary is at an interface of the static portion and the floating portion. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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 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.
8. Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Tani et al. (PUB NO: US20050055183A1) in view of Masayuki et al. (JP2005258839A)
Regarding claim 1, 8 and 17
Claim 1 – Tani teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing executable program instructions which when executed by a data processing system cause the data processing system to perform a method, (see para 46-47 and fig 2- FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing a three-dimensional mesh generating apparatus according to the present invention. In the figure, 1 represents a three-dimensional mesh generating apparatus of the present invention implemented using a computer, which comprises: a CPU 11 for performing operations; a RAM 12; an external memory device 13 such as a CD-ROM drive; and an internal memory device 14 such as a hard disk, reads a computer program 20 of the present invention from a memory product 2 such as a CD-ROM of the present invention by the external memory device 13, stores the read computer program 20 into the internal memory device 14, and loads the computer program 20 into the RAM 12, and the CPU 11 executes processes necessary for the three-dimensional mesh generating apparatus 1, based on the computer program 20. The three-dimensional mesh generating apparatus 1 comprises an input device 15 such as a keyboard or a mouse, and an output device 16 such as a liquid crystal display or a CRT display, and receives operations, such as input of data, from an operator.) comprising;
Claim 8 – Tani teaches a computer implemented method, (see para 46-47 and fig 2- FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing a three-dimensional mesh generating apparatus according to the present invention)
Claim 15 – Tani teaches a system, comprising: a memory to store a geometry representing a physical structure for a simulation of the physical structure; and one or more processors to: (see para 46-48 and fig 2- FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing a three-dimensional mesh generating apparatus according to the present invention. In the figure, 1 represents a three-dimensional mesh generating apparatus of the present invention implemented using a computer, which comprises: a CPU 11 for performing operations; a RAM 12; an external memory device 13 such as a CD-ROM drive; and an internal memory device 14 such as a hard disk, reads a computer program 20 of the present invention from a memory product 2 such as a CD-ROM of the present invention by the external memory device 13, stores the read computer program 20 into the internal memory device 14, and loads the computer program 20 into the RAM 12, and the CPU 11 executes processes necessary for the three-dimensional mesh generating apparatus 1, based on the computer program 20. The three-dimensional mesh generating apparatus 1 comprises an input device 15 such as a keyboard or a mouse, and an output device 16 such as a liquid crystal display or a CRT display, and receives operations, such as input of data, from an operator. FIG. 3 is a partially cut perspective view showing an example of the structure of a rotating machine having skew.)
generating a mesh of a master region in a geometry representing a physical structure for a simulation of the physical structure, the master region representing a periodic pattern of the geometry; (see para 11- A three-dimensional mesh generating method according to the first invention is a method for generating a three-dimensional mesh representing a rotating machine with a stator or a rotor having a twisted structure in a direction of a rotation axis of the rotor, including a spatial area between the stator and the rotor, by a combination of a plurality of polyhedrons. see para 22-In the first invention, a ring-shaped gap G1 is provided between the rotor and the stator on a two-dimensional plane perpendicular to the rotation axis as shown in FIG. 1(a), and both sides of the ring-shaped gap G1 are equally divided to generate a two-dimensional mesh of the stator side and the rotor side as shown in FIG. 1(b). In the third invention, each of the surface elements constituting the stator-side mesh surface ST and the rotor-side mesh surface RT is associated with surface elements constituting the boundary surface SL, and the space between corresponding surface elements is filled with one quadrangular pyramid and four tetrahedrons. Consequently, the three-dimensional mesh is made periodic in the rotation direction without requiring an additional process.)
splitting the mesh of the master region along mesh edges between the first boundary and the second boundary, the mesh split into a static portion and a floating portion along an arbitrary matching boundary according to the mesh edges; (See para 22-FIG. 1 is an explanatory view showing the procedure of a three-dimensional mesh generating method of the first invention. In the first invention, a ring-shaped gap G1 is provided between the rotor and the stator on a two-dimensional plane perpendicular to the rotation axis as shown in FIG. 1(a), and both sides of the ring-shaped gap G1 are equally divided to generate a two-dimensional mesh of the stator side and the rotor side as shown in FIG. 1(b). Next, as shown in FIG. 1(d), a boundary surface SL is formed by projecting, into the cylindrical gap, any one of a stator-side mesh surface ST and a rotor-side mesh surface RT which face each other with a cylindrical gap G2 therebetween. Next, a three-dimensional mesh is generated as shown in FIG. 1(e) by filing the cylindrical gap G2 with a plurality of polyhedrons including polyhedrons comprising each of surface elements constituting the boundary surface SL, the stator-side mesh surface ST and the rotor-side mesh surface RT as one face. Since portions of the stator side and the rotor side of the three-dimensional mesh which come into contact with each other at the boundary surface are composed of elements having mutually equal size in the rotation direction, it is possible to rotate the rotor side of a three-dimensional mesh representing a rotating machine having skew by shifting the elements from the boundary surface. Also see fig 5-6 and para 51- FIG. 5 is a schematic view for explaining the processes of generating the initial three-dimensional mesh. First, one layer of two-dimensional mesh as shown in FIG. 5(a) is stacked in the direction of the rotation axis, and the rotor side of the two-dimensional mesh is rotated according to the structure of the skew. In the figure, M1 represents the first two-dimensional mesh, and M2 represents the stacked two-dimensional mesh. Next, corresponding nodes in the two-dimensional meshes are connected by a straight line between the stacked two-dimensional meshes to generate one layer of initial three-dimensional mesh. Further, as shown in FIG. 5(c), the next two-dimensional mesh M3 is stacked and the rotor side is rotated, and the same operation is repeated until the initial three-dimensional mesh representing the structure of the rotating machine is completed. FIG. 6 is a perspective view showing a part of the initial three-dimensional mesh. On the stator side, the initial three-dimensional mesh is generated by stacking two-dimensional meshes parallel to the rotation axis, while, on the rotor side, the initial three-dimensional mesh having a twisted structure according to the structure of the skew is generated. A cylindrical gap G2 is generated between the stator side and the rotor side by a stack of the ring-shaped gaps G1.)
assembling the static portion and the floating portion according to a conformal interface of the matching boundaries of the first boundary and the second boundary into an assembled mesh bounded by the arbitrary matching boundary.(see para 22-Next, as shown in FIG. 1(c), an initial three-dimensional mesh having skew is generated by joining together the two-dimensional meshes with the stator side and the rotor side relatively rotated according to the skew structure, in the direction of the rotation axis. Next, a three-dimensional mesh is generated as shown in FIG. 1(e) by filing the cylindrical gap G2 with a plurality of polyhedrons including polyhedrons comprising each of surface elements constituting the boundary surface SL, the stator-side mesh surface ST and the rotor-side mesh surface RT as one face. Since portions of the stator side and the rotor side of the three-dimensional mesh which come into contact with each other at the boundary surface are composed of elements having mutually equal size in the rotation direction, it is possible to rotate the rotor side of a three-dimensional mesh representing a rotating machine having skew by shifting the elements from the boundary surface. Next, a three-dimensional mesh is generated as shown in FIG. 1(e) by filing the cylindrical gap G2 with a plurality of polyhedrons including polyhedrons comprising each of surface elements constituting the boundary surface SL, the stator-side mesh surface ST and the rotor-side mesh surface RT as one face. Since portions of the stator side and the rotor side of the three-dimensional mesh which come into contact with each other at the boundary surface are composed of elements having mutually equal size in the rotation direction, it is possible to rotate the rotor side of a three-dimensional mesh representing a rotating machine having skew by shifting the elements from the boundary surface. see para 59-FIG. 15 is a perspective view showing a part of the completed three-dimensional mesh. All the portions including the cylindrical gap G2 are represented by combinations of a plurality of polyhedrons, and the stator-side three-dimensional mesh and the rotor-side three-dimensional mesh match each other at the boundary surface SL. See also para 51)
Examiner note: Examiner consider the stator portion is the static (or constant) portion of the mesh and rotor potion as the floating portion (or rotated) of the mesh.
Tani does not teach wherein the master region is bounded between a first boundary and a second boundary as matching boundaries of the mesh.
In the related field of invention, Masayuki teaches wherein the master region is bounded between a first boundary and a second boundary as matching boundaries of the mesh. (See para 58-59-In the analysis model 220 shown in FIG. 22, the surface 221, the surface 222 that is the back surface of the surface 221, the surface 223, the surface 224 that is the back surface of the surface 223, and the like are searched. Regarding the surface 221, line segments 225 and 227 are axial line segments, and line segments 226 and 228 are circumferential line segments. Find the first line segment closest to the axis of rotation among the line segments in the axial direction. The obtained first line segment is projected onto the rotation axis to create a second line segment. A surface having these two first and second line segments as a boundary line is created. In FIG. 22, the first line segment is a line segment 225, and the second line segment is a line segment 238. A surface 230 is created from these line segments 225, 238.)
Therefore, 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 method of mesh generation as disclosed by Tani to include wherein the master region is bounded between a first boundary and a second boundary as matching boundaries of the mesh as taught by Masayuki in the system of Tani in order to generate a mesh for an analysis model composed of an arbitrary rotating body that optimizes and rationalizes design work, and more particularly to an analysis mesh generation apparatus used in CAE. (see para 001 and 008, Masayuki)
Regarding claim 2, 9 and 16
Tani does not teach wherein the assembled mesh is between a first arbitrary boundary and a second arbitrary boundary, and wherein the first arbitrary boundary and the second arbitrary boundary have a same shape of the arbitrary matching boundary.
However, Masayuki further teaches wherein the assembled mesh is between a first arbitrary boundary and a second arbitrary boundary, and wherein the first arbitrary boundary and the second arbitrary boundary have a same shape of the arbitrary matching boundary. (See para 39-49-(E) Next, a mesh is generated for the reference partial model 134p of group 2. At this time, mesh patterns are matched at the group boundary surfaces of group 1 and group 2 to ensure continuity of the mesh. The specific method is as follows. (F) The degree of coincidence of the faces and lines of the group 1 reference partial model 131p and the group 2 reference partial model 134p is examined. FIG. 17A shows the reference partial model 131p rotated and moved to the position of the reference partial model 134p. For comparison, a reference partial model 134p is shown in FIG. The line segments 171a to 171t have the same subscripts as the line segments 172a to 172t, and the surfaces 173a to 173k have the same subscripts as the surfaces 174a to 174k. It is the face of. (G) For the line segments 172a to 172t that match between the reference partial model 131p and the reference partial model 134p in step (f), when generating a mesh model with hexahedral mesh elements, the number of divisions is set to both models 131p. , 134p are the same. The system determines the line segment of the reference partial model 134p that does not match between the two reference partial models 131p and 134p, for example, the line segment 175. As a result, mesh elements are continuously formed even at the boundary portion (H) When generating a mesh model with tetrahedral mesh elements, the division of the faces 173a to 173k that coincide with each other in the reference partial models 131p and 134p is copied. For the surface of the reference partial model 134p that does not match between the two reference partial models 131p and 134p, for example, the surface 176, a mesh model is generated so as to maintain continuity at the copied mesh and the boundary. As a result, the entire mesh model is completed. An example of the mesh model 190 generated using the hexahedral mesh element 191 is shown in FIG.19)
Therefore, 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 method of mesh generation as disclosed by Tani to include wherein the assembled mesh is between a first arbitrary boundary and a second arbitrary boundary, and wherein the first arbitrary boundary and the second arbitrary boundary have a same shape of the arbitrary matching boundary as taught by Masayuki in the system of Tani in order to generate a mesh for an analysis model composed of an arbitrary rotating body that optimizes and rationalizes design work, and more particularly to an analysis mesh generation apparatus used in CAE. (see para 001 and 008, Masayuki)
Regarding claim 3, 10 and 17
Tani further teaches dividing the mesh of the master region into the static portion and the floating portion along the arbitrary boundary. (See para 22-FIG. 1 is an explanatory view showing the procedure of a three-dimensional mesh generating method of the first invention. In the first invention, a ring-shaped gap G1 is provided between the rotor and the stator on a two-dimensional plane perpendicular to the rotation axis as shown in FIG. 1(a), and both sides of the ring-shaped gap G1 are equally divided to generate a two-dimensional mesh of the stator side and the rotor side as shown in FIG. 1(b). Also see fig 5-6 and para 51- FIG. 5 is a schematic view for explaining the processes of generating the initial three-dimensional mesh. First, one layer of two-dimensional mesh as shown in FIG. 5(a) is stacked in the direction of the rotation axis, and the rotor side of the two-dimensional mesh is rotated according to the structure of the skew. In the figure, M1 represents the first two-dimensional mesh, and M2 represents the stacked two-dimensional mesh. Next, corresponding nodes in the two-dimensional meshes are connected by a straight line between the stacked two-dimensional meshes to generate one layer of initial three-dimensional mesh. Further, as shown in FIG. 5(c), the next two-dimensional mesh M3 is stacked and the rotor side is rotated, and the same operation is repeated until the initial three-dimensional mesh representing the structure of the rotating machine is completed. FIG. 6 is a perspective view showing a part of the initial three-dimensional mesh. On the stator side, the initial three-dimensional mesh is generated by stacking two-dimensional meshes parallel to the rotation axis, while, on the rotor side, the initial three-dimensional mesh having a twisted structure according to the structure of the skew is generated. A cylindrical gap G2 is generated between the stator side and the rotor side by a stack of the ring-shaped gaps G1.)
Regarding claim 4, 11 and 18
Tani further teaches wherein splitting the mesh includes generating a first mesh of a first interior region of the master region, and further comprising partitioning the generated first mesh of the first interior region of the master region into the static portion and the floating portion. (See para 22-FIG. 1 is an explanatory view showing the procedure of a three-dimensional mesh generating method of the first invention. In the first invention, a ring-shaped gap G1 is provided between the rotor and the stator on a two-dimensional plane perpendicular to the rotation axis as shown in FIG. 1(a), and both sides of the ring-shaped gap G1 are equally divided to generate a two-dimensional mesh of the stator side and the rotor side as shown in FIG. 1(b). Next, as shown in FIG. 1(d), a boundary surface SL is formed by projecting, into the cylindrical gap, any one of a stator-side mesh surface ST and a rotor-side mesh surface RT which face each other with a cylindrical gap G2 therebetween. Next, a three-dimensional mesh is generated as shown in FIG. 1(e) by filing the cylindrical gap G2 with a plurality of polyhedrons including polyhedrons comprising each of surface elements constituting the boundary surface SL, the stator-side mesh surface ST and the rotor-side mesh surface RT as one face. Since portions of the stator side and the rotor side of the three-dimensional mesh which come into contact with each other at the boundary surface are composed of elements having mutually equal size in the rotation direction, it is possible to rotate the rotor side of a three-dimensional mesh representing a rotating machine having skew by shifting the elements from the boundary surface. Also see fig 5-6 and para 51- FIG. 5 is a schematic view for explaining the processes of generating the initial three-dimensional mesh. First, one layer of two-dimensional mesh as shown in FIG. 5(a) is stacked in the direction of the rotation axis, and the rotor side of the two-dimensional mesh is rotated according to the structure of the skew. In the figure, M1 represents the first two-dimensional mesh, and M2 represents the stacked two-dimensional mesh. Next, corresponding nodes in the two-dimensional meshes are connected by a straight line between the stacked two-dimensional meshes to generate one layer of initial three-dimensional mesh. Further, as shown in FIG. 5(c), the next two-dimensional mesh M3 is stacked and the rotor side is rotated, and the same operation is repeated until the initial three-dimensional mesh representing the structure of the rotating machine is completed. FIG. 6 is a perspective view showing a part of the initial three-dimensional mesh. On the stator side, the initial three-dimensional mesh is generated by stacking two-dimensional meshes parallel to the rotation axis, while, on the rotor side, the initial three-dimensional mesh having a twisted structure according to the structure of the skew is generated. A cylindrical gap G2 is generated between the stator side and the rotor side by a stack of the ring-shaped gaps G1.)
Regarding claim 5 and 12
Tani further teaches identifying a second interior region of an assembled region; and generating a second mesh of the second interior region. (See para 22-FIG. 1 is an explanatory view showing the procedure of a three-dimensional mesh generating method of the first invention. In the first invention, a ring-shaped gap G1 is provided between the rotor and the stator on a two-dimensional plane perpendicular to the rotation axis as shown in FIG. 1(a), and both sides of the ring-shaped gap G1 are equally divided to generate a two-dimensional mesh of the stator side and the rotor side as shown in FIG. 1(b). Next, as shown in FIG. 1(d), a boundary surface SL is formed by projecting, into the cylindrical gap, any one of a stator-side mesh surface ST and a rotor-side mesh surface RT which face each other with a cylindrical gap G2 therebetween. Next, a three-dimensional mesh is generated as shown in FIG. 1(e) by filing the cylindrical gap G2 with a plurality of polyhedrons including polyhedrons comprising each of surface elements constituting the boundary surface SL, the stator-side mesh surface ST and the rotor-side mesh surface RT as one face. Since portions of the stator side and the rotor side of the three-dimensional mesh which come into contact with each other at the boundary surface are composed of elements having mutually equal size in the rotation direction, it is possible to rotate the rotor side of a three-dimensional mesh representing a rotating machine having skew by shifting the elements from the boundary surface. Also see fig 5-6 and para 51- FIG. 5 is a schematic view for explaining the processes of generating the initial three-dimensional mesh. First, one layer of two-dimensional mesh as shown in FIG. 5(a) is stacked in the direction of the rotation axis, and the rotor side of the two-dimensional mesh is rotated according to the structure of the skew. In the figure, M1 represents the first two-dimensional mesh, and M2 represents the stacked two-dimensional mesh. Next, corresponding nodes in the two-dimensional meshes are connected by a straight line between the stacked two-dimensional meshes to generate one layer of initial three-dimensional mesh. Further, as shown in FIG. 5(c), the next two-dimensional mesh M3 is stacked and the rotor side is rotated, and the same operation is repeated until the initial three-dimensional mesh representing the structure of the rotating machine is completed. FIG. 6 is a perspective view showing a part of the initial three-dimensional mesh. On the stator side, the initial three-dimensional mesh is generated by stacking two-dimensional meshes parallel to the rotation axis, while, on the rotor side, the initial three-dimensional mesh having a twisted structure according to the structure of the skew is generated. A cylindrical gap G2 is generated between the stator side and the rotor side by a stack of the ring-shaped gaps G1.)
Regarding claim 7, 14 and 20
Tani further teaches wherein the arbitrary matching boundary is at an interface of the static portion and the floating portion. (See para 59-FIG. 15 is a perspective view showing a part of the completed three-dimensional mesh. All the portions including the cylindrical gap G2 are represented by combinations of a plurality of polyhedrons, and the stator-side three-dimensional mesh and the rotor-side three-dimensional mesh match each other at the boundary surface SL.)
9. Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Tani et al. (PUB NO: US20050055183A1) in view of Masayuki et al. (JP2005258839A) and further in view of Shen, Jie. ("Feature-Based Optimization of Beam Structures Represented by Polygonal Meshes." Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering 3.3 (2003): 243-249.)
Regarding claim 6, 13 and 19
Tani does not teach wherein generating the mesh of the master region comprises: identifying a plurality of cuts through a default master region determining a minimum geometry intersection of the plurality of cuts through the default master region.
However, Masayuki further teaches wherein generating the mesh of the master region comprises: identifying a plurality of cuts through a default master region; (See para 35-In the process of creating the partial models 131p to 136q, when the “partition plane creation” button 121 is clicked, the division planes 131a to 136a or 131c to 136c are created according to the above method. The system user changes the division position by clicking the “change position” button 122 as necessary. In addition, if the “change surface shape” button 123 is clicked, the shape of the divided surface itself can be changed to a curved surface or the like. If the “use symmetry” button 124 is clicked, the shape division based on the symmetry shown in FIGS. 13C and 13D can be performed. When the system user clicks the “divide execution” button 125, the analysis model 20 of the analysis model 20 is based on the rotation angle θ and the rotation speed n obtained from the equation (1) using the division plane displayed on the screen. )
The combination of Tani and Masayuki does not teach determining a minimum geometry intersection of the plurality of cuts through the default master region.
In the related field of invention, Shen teaches determining a minimum geometry intersection of the plurality of cuts through the default master region. (See section 3.1- 3.2- Determine all the cutting planes. Totally eight cutting planes are created with an equal angular interval. The reason for us to use only eight cutting planes is mainly due to the consideration of computational efficiency. Figure 2b! shows an example of 6 cutting planes that share the rotation axis. Loop over all the cutting planes find a cutting plane that has a minimum perimeter of the cross section caused by the intersection between this cutting plane and the beam component. Figure 3 shows an example of a cross section and its perimeter associated with a cutting plane. Return the minimum cutting plane as the minimum intersection plane. After the minimum intersection plane is known, the minimum intersection element set can be easily determined. It is basically a set of surface elements that intersect with the minimum intersection plane.)
Therefore, 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 method of mesh generation as disclosed by Tani to determining a minimum geometry intersection of the plurality of cuts through the default master region as taught by Shen in the system of Tani and Masayuki in order to provide a new shape optimization approach, feature-based optimization of beam structures for an efficient optimization solution of beam components in complex mechanical structures represented by polygonal meshes. an objective function is to minimize the compliance of structures represented by finite clement meshes using gradient-based optimization. (See Abstract, Shen)
Conclusion
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US6434491B1 Miyata et al.
Discussing a method of analyzing electromagnetic fields created in a rotary machine and an analyzer. The method and analyzer provide for an electromagnetic field in a total analysis space of a rotary machine including a stator space containing a stator and a rotor space containing a rotor to be analyzed to determine a boundary field between the stator space and the rotor space.
SCHIMIDT et al. US20130314415A1.
Discussing a system of receiving a first mesh boundary and a second mesh boundary, removing a first surface associated with the first mesh boundary, and removing a second surface associated with the second mesh boundary. The technique further involves joining a first vertex associated with the first mesh boundary to a first plurality of vertices associated with the second mesh boundary to form a joined surface. Finally, the technique involves performing one or more mesh refinement passes on the joined surface to generate a refined mesh surface.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PURSOTTAM GIRI whose telephone number is (469)295-9101. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 PM, Monday to Friday.
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 5712701104. 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.
/PURSOTTAM GIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights