DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
"data processing apparatus" in claims 12 and 22.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (Fig. 9 [00463] computer) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2, 12 and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9 and 12 of US 11675333 B2, respectively. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application 2, 12 and 22 are anticipated by patent claims 1, 9 and 12, respectively.
Regarding instant claim 12, claim 9 of US 11675333 B2 teaches the claim limitations, as shown in the following table:
Instant Application
US 11675333 B2
12. (New) A system comprising:
9. A system comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium encoding instructions of a computer program; and
a non-transitory storage medium having instructions of a computer aided design program stored thereon; and
one or more data processing apparatus configured to run the instructions of the computer program;
one or more data processing apparatus configured to run the instructions of the computer aided design program to:
wherein the instructions of the computer program are configured to cause the one or more data processing apparatus to perform operations comprising obtaining one or more design criteria for a modeled object,
obtain a design space for a modeled object, for which a corresponding physical structure will be manufactured, one or more design criteria for the modeled object, and one or more in-use load cases for the physical structure;
iteratively modifying a three dimensional shape of the modeled object in accordance with the one or more design criteria, wherein the iteratively modifying comprises regulating shape change velocities for an implicit surface representation of the three dimensional shape that exceed a reference velocity, and
iteratively modify a generatively designed three dimensional shape of the modeled object in the design space in accordance with the one or more design criteria and the one or more in-use load cases for the physical structure,compute shape change velocities for an implicit surface in a level-set representation of the three dimensional shape,change the shape change velocities in accordance with a polynomial function that has been fit to at least a portion of the shape change velocities above a reference velocity,
providing the three dimensional shape of the modeled object for use in manufacturing a physical structure corresponding to the modeled object using one or more computer-controlled manufacturing systems.
provide, by the computer aided design program, the generatively designed three dimensional shape of the modeled object for use in manufacturing the physical structure corresponding to the modeled object using one or more computer-controlled manufacturing systems.
Claim 12 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 9 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the patented invention.
Similarly, claims 1 and 12 of the patent teach instant claims 2 and 22, respectively. Claims 2 and 22 are generic to the species of invention covered by claims 1 and 12 of the patent, respectively. Thus, the generic inventions are "anticipated" by the species of the patented invention.
Claims 3, 13 and 23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9 and 13 of US 11675333 B2 respectively, in view of Zhang CN 107748916 A.
Regarding claims 3, 13 and 23, claims 1, 9 and 13 of patent do not respectively further teach regulating the shape change velocities comprises reducing the shape change velocities above the reference velocity in accordance with a function.
Zhang explicitly teaches in an analogous art that regulating the shape change velocities comprises reducing the shape change velocities above the reference velocity in accordance with a function (page 2 last paragraph to pages 3 second paragraph, pages 3-4 step eight, PI=V0/Vi, V0 is initial volume, Vi is actual volume at iteration I; comparing PI with threshold of PI, PI is ratio of V0/Vi, Vi is current volume with elements removed, if PI < PIth, i.e. 1/PI > 1/PIth, the change velocity is excessive, the removed volume is recovered to reduce the change velocity), as stated in the following 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of US 11675333 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 6 is anticipated by patent claim 4.
Regarding instant claim 6, claim 4 of US 11675333 B2 teaches the claim limitations, as shown in the following table:
Instant Application
US 11675333 B2
6. wherein the iteratively modifying comprises slowing shape changes for a next iteration of the iteratively modifying in response to a change, which was made to the implicit surface in a current iteration of the iteratively modifying, being undone.
4. wherein the iteratively modifying comprises, after the updating and before the repeating:
checking for an excessive change having been made during the updating;
making the current version of the three dimensional shape be the updated version of the three dimensional shape for a next iteration to undue the excessive change; and
slowing shape changes for the next iteration of the iteratively modifying.
Claim 6 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 4 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the patented invention.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of US 11675333 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 7 is anticipated by patent claim 6.
Regarding instant claim 7, claim 6 of US 11675333 B2 teaches the claim limitations, as shown in the following table:
Instant Application
US 11675333 B2
7. wherein slowing the shape changes for the next iteration comprises reducing a target volume change for the three dimensional shape of the modeled object for the next iteration of the iteratively modifying.
6. wherein slowing the shape changes for the next iteration comprises reducing a target volume change for the generatively designed three dimensional shape of the modeled object for the next iteration of the iteratively modifying.
Claim 7 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 6 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the patented invention.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of US 11675333 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 8 is anticipated by patent claim 7.
Regarding instant claim 8, claim 7 of US 11675333 B2 teaches the claim limitations, as shown in the following table:
Instant Application
US 11675333 B2
8. identifying elements that are not entirely within the implicit surface; and removing any of the identified elements that are not connected to any nodes of a current version of the three dimensional shape.
7. identifying any elements, generated from the current version of the three dimensional shape for the numerical simulation, that are partially but not entirely within the implicit surface; and
removing any of the identified elements that are not connected to any nodes of the current version of the three dimensional shape with Dirichlet boundary conditions, before performing the numerical simulation.
Claim 8 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 7 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the patented invention.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of US 11675333 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 9 is anticipated by patent claim 8.
Regarding instant claim 9, claim 8 of US 11675333 B2 teaches the claim limitations, as shown in the following table:
Instant Application
US 11675333 B2
9. identifying elements that are not entirely within the implicit surface;
setting densities of the identified elements equal to respective fractional amounts of each identified element that falls within the implicit surface; and
penalizing stiffness of the identified elements according to the densities.
8. before performing the numerical simulation:
identifying any elements, generated from the current version of the three dimensional shape for the numerical simulation, that are partially but not entirely within the implicit surface; and
setting densities of the identified elements equal to respective volume fractions of the identified elements, wherein a volume fraction of an identified element is a fractional amount of the identified element that falls within the implicit surface;
wherein performing the numerical simulation includes penalizing stiffness of the identified elements according to the densities.
Claim 9 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 8 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the patented invention.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of US 11675333 B2 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 16, it is directed to a system of carrying out the method with similar limitations as set forth in claim 4 of patent. Since claim 4 of patent teaches the claimed method, it teaches the system for implementing the method steps.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of US 11675333 B2 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 17, it is directed to a system of carrying out the method with similar limitations as set forth in claim 6 of patent. Since claim 6 of patent teaches the claimed method, it teaches the system for implementing the method steps.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of US 11675333 B2 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 18, it is directed to a system of carrying out the method with similar limitations as set forth in claim 7 of patent. Since claim 7 of patent teaches the claimed method, it teaches the system for implementing the method steps.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of US 11675333 B2 based on obviousness analysis.
Regarding claim 19, it is directed to a system of carrying out the method with similar limitations as set forth in claim 8 of patent. Since claim 8 of patent teaches the claimed method, it teaches the system for implementing the method steps.
Claims 2, 12 and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13 and 25 of US 12085917 B2, respectively. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claims 2, 12 and 22 are anticipated by patent claims 1, 13 and 25, respectively.
Regarding instant claim 12, claim 13 of US 12085917 B2 teaches the claim limitations, as shown in the following table:
Instant Application
US 12085917 B2
12. (New) A system comprising:
13. A system comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium encoding instructions of a computer program; and
a first computer communicatively coupled with a network,the first computer comprising a first non-transitory storage medium having instructions of a computerprogram stored thereon; anda second computer communicatively coupled with thenetwork, the second computer comprising a secondnon-transitory storage medium having instructions ofthe computer program stored thereon;
one or more data processing apparatus configured to run the instructions of the computer program;
wherein the instructions of the computer program are configured to cause the one or more data processing apparatus to perform operations comprising obtaining one or more design criteria for a modeled object,
wherein the instructions of the computer program areconfigured to cause the first and second computers tooperate cooperatively to obtain one or more load cases and one or more designcriteria for a modeled object,
iteratively modifying a three dimensional shape of the modeled object in accordance with the one or more design criteria, wherein the iteratively modifying comprises regulating shape change velocities for an implicit surface representation of the three dimensional shape that exceed a reference velocity, and
iteratively modify a three dimensional shape of themodeled object in accordance with the one or moredesign criteria and the one or more load cases,wherein the iterative modification comprises regulatingshape change velocities for an implicit surfacerepresentation of the three dimensional shape thatexceed a reference velocity, wherein the referencevelocity is set based on a mean and a standarddeviation of a shape derivative on the implicit surface,and
providing the three dimensional shape of the modeled object for use in manufacturing a physical structure corresponding to the modeled object using one or more computer-controlled manufacturing systems.
provide the three dimensional shape of the modeledobject for use in manufacturing a physical structurecorresponding to the modeled object using one ormore computer-controlled additive manufacturingsystems.
Claim 12 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 13 of patent. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the patented invention.
Similarly, claims 1 and 25 of the patent teach instant claims 2 and 22, respectively. Claims 2 and 22 are generic to the species of invention covered by claims 1 and 25 of the patent, respectively. Thus, the generic inventions are "anticipated" by the species of the patented invention.
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.
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 10, 12-14, 16-17, 20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bacher US 20190366703 A1 in view of Zhang CN 107748916 A.
Regarding claim 12, Bacher teaches a system (Fig. 3 column 7 lines 27-49, 3D printing system) comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium encoding instructions of a computer program; and one or more data processing apparatus configured to run the instructions of the computer program (Fig. 3 column 7 lines 50-54, CPU and memory);
wherein the instructions of the computer program are configured to cause the one or more data processing apparatus to perform operations comprising obtaining one or more design criteria for a modeled object (Fig. 3 column 7 lines 27-49, column 8 lines 1-52 input includes 3D model of object defines outer surfaces, design spaces for the modeled object to be printed, including design criteria and one or more in-use load cases – minimize the potential failure and the weight for worst-case load),
iteratively modifying a three dimensional shape of the modeled object in accordance with the one or more design criteria, wherein the iteratively modifying comprises regulating shape change velocities for an implicit surface representation of the three dimensional shape (column 7 lines 11-26, column 20 lines 6-50, column 21 lines 23-34, velocity is chosen in a way that minimizes the objective function based on the constraints including internal force constraint, the level set is evolved with the advection at each iteration of the level set), and
providing the three dimensional shape of the modeled object for use in manufacturing a physical structure corresponding to the modeled object using one or more computer-controlled manufacturing systems (column 7 lines 27-49, output file for printing).
Bacher does not explicitly teach the shape change velocities regulated are the shape change velocities that exceed a reference velocity.
Zhang explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the shape change velocities regulated are shape change velocities that exceed a reference velocity (page 2 last paragraph to pages 3 second paragraph, pages 3-4 step eight, PI=V0/Vi, V0 is initial volume, Vi is actual volume at iteration I; comparing PI with threshold of PI, PI is ratio of V0/Vi, Vi is current volume with elements removed, if PI < PIth, i.e. 1/PI > 1/PIth, the change velocity is excessive, the removed volume is recovered to reduce the change velocity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bacher to incorporate the teachings of Zhang because they all directed to topological optimization, to make the system wherein the shape change velocities regulated are the shape change velocities that exceed a reference velocity. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to keep the change in acceptable range, as Zhang teaches in pages 3-4 step eight.
Regarding claim 2, it is directed to a method of carrying out the system with similar limitations as set forth in claim 12. Since Bacher and Zhang teach the claimed system, they teach the method steps for implementing the system.
Regarding claim 22, it is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium encoding a computer program of carrying out the system with similar limitations as set forth in claim 12. Since Bacher and Zhang teach the claimed system, they teach the computer program for implementing the system.
Regarding claims 3, 13 and 23, Bacher in view of Zhang further teaches regulating the shape change velocities comprises reducing the shape change velocities above the reference velocity in accordance with a function (page 2 last paragraph to pages 3 second paragraph, pages 3-4 step eight, PI=V0/Vi, V0 is initial volume, Vi is actual volume at iteration I; comparing PI with threshold of PI, PI is ratio of V0/Vi, Vi is current volume with elements removed, if PI < PIth, i.e. 1/PI > 1/PIth, the change velocity is excessive, the removed volume is recovered to reduce the change velocity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bacher to incorporate the teachings of Zhang because they all directed to topological optimization, to make the method/system/non-transitory computer-readable medium wherein regulating the shape change velocities comprises reducing the shape change velocities above the reference velocity in accordance with a function. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to keep the change in acceptable range, as Zhang teaches in pages 3-4 step eight.
Regarding claims 4, 14 and 24, Bacher further teaches the shape change velocities are calculated for a stress constraint for the modeled object (column 7 lines 11-26, column 20 lines 6-50, column 21 lines 23-34, velocity is chosen in a way that minimizes the objective function based on the constraints including internal force constraint), and the reference velocity is calculated using a mean and a standard deviation of a stress distribution computed for the modeled object (column 8 lines 31-67 and column 19 lines 2-26, the velocity is calculated based on the stress state that is defined by the force distribution, the force distribution is defined by a mean Xc with standard deviation hc).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Bacher in view of Zhang further teaches the iteratively modifying comprises slowing shape changes for a next iteration of the iteratively modifying in response to a change (pages 3-4 step eight, is PI < PIth, recover the removed elements, increase their penalty gene to make them harder to be selected to be removed – slowing the shape changes), which was made to the implicit surface in a current iteration of the iteratively modifying, being undone (page 2 last paragraph to pages 3 second paragraph, pages 3-4 step eight, PI=V0/Vi, V0 is initial volume, Vi is actual volume at iteration I; comparing PI with threshold of PI, PI is ratio of V0/Vi, Vi is current volume with elements removed, if PI < PIth, i.e. 1/PI > 1/PIth, the change velocity is excessive, the removed volume is recovered to reduce the change velocity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bacher to incorporate the teachings of Zhang because they all directed to topological optimization, to make the method/system wherein the iteratively modifying comprises slowing shape changes for a next iteration of the iteratively modifying in response to a change, which was made to the implicit surface in a current iteration of the iteratively modifying, being undone. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to keep the change in acceptable range, as Zhang teaches in pages 3-4 step eight.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Bacher in view of Zhang further teaches slowing the shape changes for the next iteration comprises reducing a target volume change for the three dimensional shape of the modeled object for the next iteration of the iteratively modifying (pages 3-4 step eight, comparing PI with threshold of PI, PI is ratio of V0/Vi, Vi is current volume with elements removed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bacher to incorporate the teachings of Zhang because they all directed to topological optimization, to make the method/system wherein slowing the shape changes for the next iteration comprises reducing a target volume change for the three dimensional shape of the modeled object for the next iteration of the iteratively modifying. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to keep the change in acceptable range, as Zhang teaches in pages 3-4 step eight.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Bacher further teaches the iteratively modifying comprises computing shape change velocities using an amount determined from a shape derivative formula that approximates a shape derivative for multiple locations on or in the modeled object (column 20 line 48 to column 21 line 22, the gradient is propagated to all the nodes).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bacher in view of Zhang as applied to claims 2-4, 6-7, 10, 12-14, 16-17, 20 and 22-24, further in view of James “Stress-based topology optimization using an isoparametric level set method” and Grady US 20070047810 A1.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Bacher does not explicitly further teach:
identifying elements that are not entirely within the implicit surface; and
removing any of the identified elements that are not connected to any nodes of a current version of the three dimensional shape.
James explicitly teaches in an analogous art that identifying elements that are not entirely within the implicit surface (page 21 2. Level set method, the elements bisected by the boundary); and
Grady explicitly teaches in an analogous art that removing any of the identified elements that are not connected to any nodes of a current version of the three dimensional shape ([0024] for some of the B elements – not connected to any modes with Dirichlet boundary conditions, nodes are boundary nodes are removed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bacher and Zhang to incorporate the teachings of James and Grady because they all directed to topological optimization, to make the method/system wherein identifying elements that are not entirely within the implicit surface; and removing any of the identified elements that are not connected to any nodes of a current version of the three dimensional shape. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to interpolate the relative material density, as James teaches in page 21 2. Level set method; and to remove the boundary nodes, as Grady teaches in [0024].
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bacher in view of Zhang as applied to claims 2-4, 6-7, 10, 12-14, 16-17, 20 and 22-24, further in view of James.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Bacher does not explicitly further teach:
identifying elements that are not entirely within the implicit surface;
setting densities of the identified elements equal to respective fractional amounts of each identified element that falls within the implicit surface; and penalizing stiffness of the identified elements according to the densities.
James explicitly teaches in an analogous art:
identifying elements that are not entirely within the implicit surface (page 21 2. Level set method, the elements bisected by the boundary);
setting densities of the identified elements equal to respective fractional amounts of each identified element that falls within the implicit surface; and penalizing stiffness of the identified elements according to the densities (page 21 2. Level set method, the elements bisected by the boundary, densities are interpolated, relative material density determines relative stiffness – stiffness of identified elements are penalized).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bacher and Zhang to incorporate the teachings of James because they all directed to topological optimization, to make the method/system wherein identifying elements that are not entirely within the implicit surface; setting densities of the identified elements equal to respective fractional amounts of each identified element that falls within the implicit surface; and penalizing stiffness of the identified elements according to the densities. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to optimize the location of a material boundary, as James teaches in page 21 2. Level set method.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 15 and 25 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 11 and 21 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims with the appropriate filing of Terminal Disclaimer.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 5, 15 and 25, claims 5, 15 and 25 depend on claims 2, 12 and 22, respectively. Bacher and Zhang together teach the claim limitations of claims 2, 12 and 22.
Bacher further teaches the iteratively modifying comprises normalizing a shape derivative, which is used to determine the shape change velocities, such that a magnitude of a maximum value on the implicit surface used to represent the implicit surface (column 20 lines 6-65, gradient i.e. “a shape derivative” is propagated and normalized to determine the shape change velocities), and the normalizing comprises: the regulating; and scaling the shape change velocities (column 21 lines 1-22, the step is scaled);
Museth US 20040170302 A1 teaches the implicit surface approximates a voxel size ([0081] the curve is set of voxels approximates to the surface).
However, Bacher, Zhang and Museth do not teach or suggest individually or in combination:
scaling the shape change velocities that are less than the reference velocity.
Regarding claims 11 and 21, claims 11 and 21 depend on claims 10 and 20, respectively. Bacher and Zhang together teach the claim limitations of claims 10 and 20.
However, Bacher and Zhang do not teach or suggest individually or in combination:
the shape derivative formula comprises a volume fraction or a stress based inequality constraint that is modified using an importance factor, which is adjusted based on whether or not one or more other constraints were violated in a prior iteration of the iteratively modifying.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Emmendoerfer “A level set approach for topology optimization with local stress constraints” 2014 teaches topology optimization with local stress constraints with velocity field calculation.
Li CN 110992356 A teaches fitting the points that values greater than the average.
Berkner US 7068851 B1 teaches smoothing coefficient of parameter greater than a transition value.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Tang whose telephone number is (571)272-7437. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30-4 EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached on (571)272-2279. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights