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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No.16292664, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. See the instant independent claims, wherein several of these limitations do not have sufficient § 112(a) support from the ‘16992664”.
E.g.: All the independent claims (1, 16, 20) include some elements from later-filed application (18902292) for example
a. Claim 1 recites limitation “varying the component based on the set”
b. Claim 16 include limitation “vary the component displayed based on analyzing the sets”
c. Claim 20 recites limitation “varying the finite element model of the structure” and “forming the structure based on varying the finite element model”;
These elements are not supported in parent application 16292664. Under MPEP 211.05 and 2133.01, claims 1, 16 and 20 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application. Dependent claims 2-15 and 17-19 are not entitled to the benefit for the prior application for the same reason above. Thus, claim 1-20 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application.
Specification objections
Specification recites “stinger” in para [0010] which is a typo/grammar error and “stringer” in para [0035] [0049] [0052] [0069]. It should be “stringer”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim objections
a. Claim 1 recites “storing, ...an vehicle” which is a typo/grammar error. It should be “storing …the vehicle”.
Claim 9 recites “stinger” which is a typo/grammar error. It should be “stringer”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The term “dominant” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “dominant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what specific angular orientation or magnitude of the vertical component is required to constitute a 'dominant' upward component. While the specification [0054] mentions 'dominant' for the upper/lower skins, but it fails to define the boundary between 'dominant' and 'non-dominant.' The specification [0054] provides an example stating "the upper skin is the largest group whose average normal vectors 141 have a dominant vertical component pointing upward." However, this does not define the threshold for "dominant," nor does it clarify if "dominant" means the same thing as the "largest group" or if the "average normal vectors" must satisfy a specific angular range. Consequently, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the exact scope of the claim, leading to a lack of precise boundaries, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention 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: 1-15 and 20 are directed to method or process that falls on one of statutory category.
Claims: 16-19 are directed to system or machine that falls on one of statutory category.
Step 2A) (Prong 1) Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea? (Judicially recognized exceptions)?
Claim 1 recites:
identifying a shape comprising elements of the finite element model; the identifying the shape includes selecting a first element, and identifying second elements that are directly connected to the first element; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an observation and evaluation that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) A person can look at a 2D mesh drawing and mentally, or with a pencil, circle the triangles surrounding a chosen triangle)
automatically, grouping the elements into sets; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas but for the recitation of generic computer component. A person can easily the group the elements into sets using pen and paper thus it is the mental process)
and
associating, the sets with a component of the structure. (A person can easily the associate the set of elements with component of the structure using pen and paper thus it is the mental process since it is the process step including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion)
varying the component based on the set. (The variation is a design decision based on those sets. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an observation and evaluation that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim 1 include the additional elements of storing, in a finite element model database, a finite element model of a structure of a vehicle which is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The additional elements of coupling the finite element model database to a model analysis control unit that comprises one or more processors is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). The use of automatically is a generic computer-implemented rules. The model analysis unit, processor and finite element model database are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Alternatively, claim limitation “varying the component based on the set” can also considered as merely reciting the words "apply it" with the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Thus, a structural analysis method for forming a component of a vehicle did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because it merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In view of Step 2B, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception,
i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. Claim 1 include the additional elements of storing, in a finite element model database, a finite element model of a structure of a vehicle (STEP 2A PRONG 2, STEP 2B) is further adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) and is a generic computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. The additional elements of coupling the finite element model database to a model analysis control unit that comprises one or more processors is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). The use of automatically is a generic computer-implemented rules. The additional element of using model analysis unit, processor and finite element model database is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Alternatively, claim limitation “varying the component based on the set” can also considered as merely reciting the words "apply it" with the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Thus, a structural analysis method for forming a component of a vehicle did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because it merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) Thus, claims 1 is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 and 18 further recites wherein the first element and the second elements include nodes and bars that form the shape, and each of the nodes represents zero-dimensional finite elements of the structure, each of the bars represents one-dimensional elements of the structure, and the shape represents a two-dimensional element of the structure. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an observation and evaluation that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Identifying connections between nodes on a diagram is a task a human can do mentally or using pen and paper. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 3 further recites forming the component that is varied. It is merely reciting the words "apply it" with the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); It also falls under insignificant post solution activity and is well-understood, routine or conventional. (See (MPEP 2106.05 (g) i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); ii. Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 4 further recites displaying, on a display, the finite element model of the structure based on the associating. It is further adding insignificant post-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) that is found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 5 further recites varying the finite element model displayed based on analyzing the set. A structural engineer can, in their head or on paper, look at a set of data, determine the highest number (stress point), and decide to draw a different picture on a notepad (vary the display). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an observation and evaluation that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Alternatively, it is also merely reciting the words "apply it" with the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 6 further recites wherein the structure is a wing of an aircraft, and wherein the components comprise at least one skin, at least one spar, at least one stinger, and at least one rib. This limitation did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because it merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 7 further recites wherein the identifying further comprises identifying additional elements until all elements of the finite element model are identified. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an observation that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 8 further recites wherein the automatically grouping comprises: determining normal vectors for each of the elements that are identified; grouping the sets based on normal vectors that are common to the elements. A person can take a blueprint, identify 10 surfaces (elements), calculate the angle (normal vector) of each, and write down a list grouping them by similar angles/normal vectors. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 9 further recites wherein the structure is a wing of an aircraft, and wherein the components comprise at least one skin, at least one spar, at least one stinger, and at least one rib. This limitation did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because it merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 10 further recites storing component data in a memory that is coupled to the model analysis control unit. It is further adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g) and is a generic computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 11 further recites wherein the structure is a wing, the components comprise an upper skin, a lower skin, a fore spar, an aft spar, and ribs, and the associating comprises determining that the upper skin includes first normal vectors having a dominant vertical component pointing upward, the lower skin includes second normal vectors having a dominant vertical component pointing downward, the fore spar includes third normal vectors pointing forward, the aft spar includes fourth normal vectors pointing rearward, and the ribs include fifth normal vectors pointing in a lateral direction. The steps of "determining" that specific surfaces (skin, spar, rib) have normal vectors pointing in specific directions (up, down, forward, rearward, lateral) are cognitive acts. These are observations or evaluations that a human engineer or designer can perform mentally or by sketching with pencil and paper. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 12 further recites wherein the automatically grouping the first element and the second elements into the set includes automatically grouping first elements and second elements into sets, and the associating the set with the component of the structure includes associating sets with components of the structure; the structural analysis method further comprising organizing the components, by the model analysis control unit, by centroids of elements within the components. The claim limitations—specifically "automatically grouping first elements and second elements into sets" and "associating sets with components of the structure"—are abstract concepts that can be performed in the human mind, or with paper and pencil. “Organizing…by centroids” involves calculating a central point of a shape (centroid) and sorting them, which is a calculation and evaluation task by a person using pencil and paper, to determine a structure's parts. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements of the model analysis control unit and automatically are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 13 further recites wherein the automatically grouping the first element and the second elements into the set includes automatically grouping first elements and second elements into sets, and the associating the set with the component of the structure includes associating sets with components of the structure; the structural analysis method further comprising organizing the components, by the model analysis control unit, into bays. The claim limitations—specifically "automatically grouping first elements and second elements into sets" and "associating sets with components of the structure"—are abstract concepts that can be performed in the human mind, or with paper and pencil. A person can easily organize the components of the structure into bays using pen and paper thus it is the mental process since it is the process step including an observation or evaluation. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 14 further recites wherein the organizing comprises directionally sorting the first element and the second element of the bays. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an observation or evaluation that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 15 further recites wherein organizing comprises projecting centroids of the elements along a direction of least variance between the centroids; determining strips within the bays based on the projecting; determining a number of spanwise elements based on the determining the strips. A human can plot centroids on graph paper, manually calculate variance, draw lines to determine strips, and count the spanwise elements. 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 it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Regarding claim 16
Step 2A) (Prong 1) Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea? (Judicially recognized exceptions)?
Claim 16 recites:
identify shapes comprising elements of the finite element model that are directly connected; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an observation and evaluation that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) A person can look at a 2D mesh drawing and mentally, or with a pencil, circle the triangles surrounding a chosen triangle that are directly connected)
automatically group the elements into sets; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas but for the recitation of generic computer component. A person can easily the group the elements into sets using pen and paper thus it is the mental process)
associate the sets with a component of the structure. (A person can easily the associate the set of elements with component of the structure using pen and paper thus it is the mental process since it is the process step including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion)
varying the component displayed based on analyzing the sets. (The variation is a design decision based on those sets. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an observation and evaluation that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim 16 include the additional elements of storing, in a finite element model database, a finite element model of a structure which is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The additional elements of a model analysis control unit coupled to the finite element model database and comprising one or more processors is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element of display, on the display, the finite element model of the structure based on the associating is further adding insignificant post-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g). The use of automatically is a generic computer-implemented rules. The display, model analysis unit, processor and finite element model database are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Alternatively, claim limitation “varying the component displayed based on analyzing the sets” can also be considered as merely reciting the words "apply it" with the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Thus, a structural analysis system for forming a component of a vehicle did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because it merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In view of Step 2B, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception,
i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. Claim 16 include the additional elements of storing, in a finite element model database, a finite element model of a structure (STEP 2A PRONG 2, STEP 2B) is further adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) and is a generic computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. The additional elements of a model analysis control unit coupled to the finite element model database and comprising one or more processors are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element of display, on the display, the finite element model of the structure based on the associating is further adding insignificant post-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) that is found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. The use of automatically is a generic computer-implemented rules. The additional element of using display, model analysis unit, processor and finite element model database is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Alternatively, claim limitation “varying the component displayed based on analyzing the sets” can also be considered as merely reciting the words "apply it" with the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Thus, a structural analysis system for forming a component of a vehicle did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because it merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) Thus, claims 16 is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 recites three-dimensional printer coupled to the model analysis control unit and configured to form the component based on the finite element model of the component displayed. It is merely reciting the words "apply it" with the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Alternatively, form the component based on the finite element model of the component displayed can also be considered as adding insignificant post-solution activity to the judicial exception and is well-understood, routine or conventional. (See (MPEP 2106.05 (g) i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); ii. Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55. The additional elements of three-dimensional printer coupled to the model analysis control unit amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 16.
Claim 19 further recites wherein the one or processors of the model analysis control unit are further configured to identify the elements of the finite element model that are directly connected by: selecting a first element; identifying second elements are directly connected to the first element; identifying third elements are directly connected to each of the second elements, wherein the third elements are not previously identified as the first element or the second elements; and identifying additional elements until all elements of the finite element model are identified. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 16.
Regarding claim 20
(Step 2A) (Prong 1) Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea? (Judicially recognized exceptions)?
Claim 20 recites:
identifying, shapes comprising elements of the finite element model, wherein the identifying comprises selecting a first element, identifying second elements that directly connected the first element, identifying third elements that directly connected to each of the second elements, wherein the third elements are not previously identified as the first element or the second elements, and identifying additional elements until all elements of the finite element model are identified; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an observation that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. A person can easily identify elements of the model and perform the functions associated with it using pen and paper thus it is the mental process)
automatically grouping, the elements into sets, wherein the automatically grouping comprises determining normal vectors for each of the elements that are identified, and grouping the sets based on normal vectors that are common to the elements; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an mental performance that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. A person can take a blueprint, identify 10 surfaces (elements), calculate the angle (normal vector) of each, and write down a list grouping them by similar angles/normal vectors.)
associating, the sets with components of the structure. (A person can easily the associate the set of elements with components of the structure using pen and paper thus it is the mental process since it is the process step including an observation)
organizing the components, by the model analysis control unit, into bays. wherein organizing comprises projecting centroids of the elements along a direction of least variance between the centroids; determining strips within the bays based on the projecting; determining a number of spanwise elements based on the determining the strips. (A human can plot centroids on graph paper, manually calculate variance, draw lines to determine strips, and count the spanwise elements. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including a mental performance that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.)
varying the finite element model based on the structure. (The variation is a design decision based on those sets. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an observation and evaluation that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim 20 include the additional elements of model analysis unit, display and finite element model database to perform the mental steps. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using model analysis unit, display and finite element model database to perform the abstract steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements of storing the finite element model in a finite element model database that is coupled to a model analysis control unit that comprises one or more processors; and storing component data in a memory that is coupled to the model analysis control unit is further adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g)) Claim limitation “varying the finite element model based on the structure” and “forming the structure based on varying the finite element model” are merely reciting the words "apply it" with the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Alternatively, forming the structure based on varying the finite element model can also be considered as adding insignificant post-solution activity to the judicial exception (See (MPEP 2106.05 (g). The use of automatic is a generic computer-implemented rules. Thus, a structural analysis method for forming a component of a vehicle did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because it merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In view of Step 2B, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception,
i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. The claim 20 include the additional elements of model analysis unit, display and finite element model database to perform the mental steps. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using model analysis unit, display and finite element model database to perform the abstract steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements of storing the finite element model in a finite element model database that is coupled to a model analysis control unit that comprises one or more processors; and storing component data in a memory that is coupled to the model analysis control unit is further adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g) and is a generic computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Displaying, on a display, the finite element model of the structure based on associating is further adding insignificant post-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) that is found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Claim limitation “varying the finite element model based on the structure” and “forming the structure based on varying the finite element model” are merely reciting the words "apply it" with the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Alternatively, forming the structure based on varying the finite element model is further adding insignificant post-solution activity to the judicial exception and is well-understood, routine or conventional. (See (MPEP 2106.05 (g) i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); ii. Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55. Thus, a structural analysis method for forming a component of a vehicle did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because it merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). Thus, claims 20 is not patent eligible.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
7. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devore et al. (PUB NO: US20200285713A1) in view of Doehring et al. (PUB NO: US 20190137972 A1).
Regarding claim 1
Devore teaches a structural analysis method : (see abstract-A structural analysis system and method for efficiently analyzing a finite element model)
storing, in a finite element model database, a finite element model of a structure of the vehicle;(see para 38-The finite element model database 104 stores a finite element model of a structure. See para 40-, the structure 114 may be of a portion of another vehicle (such as an automobile), a fixed structure (such as building), or the like.)
coupling the finite element model database to a model analysis control unit that comprises one or more processors;(see para 37- The model analysis control unit 100 is also coupled to a finite element model database 104, such as through one or more wired or wireless connections. See para 70-For example, the model analysis control unit 100 may be or include one or more processors that are configured to control operation thereof, as described herein.)
identifying, by the model analysis control unit, a shape comprising elements of the finite element model;(see para 41-The finite element model 112 of the structure 114 includes a plurality of elements 116. Each element 116 is formed by a plurality of nodes 118 and bars 120 that form a shape 122, such as a quadrilateral shape. Optionally, the shape 122 may be various other shapes, such as triangular)
the identifying the shape includes selecting a first element, and identifying second elements that are directly connected to the first element;(see para 43-45-At 200, the model analysis control unit 100 selects a first element 116 a of the finite element model 112. The model analysis control unit 100 may select any element 116 of the finite element model 112 as the first element 116 a. After the first element 116 a is selected, the model analysis control unit 100 then identifies second elements 116 b of the finite element model 112 that directly connect to (that is, neighbor) the first element 116 a.)
automatically grouping, by the model analysis control unit, the first element and the second elements into a set; (see para 0006-automatically grouping, by the model analysis control unit, the elements into sets)
associating, by the model analysis control unit, the set with a component of the structure; (see para 0006-associating, by the model analysis control unit, the sets with components of the structure) and
Devore does not teach a structural analysis method for forming a component of a vehicle and varying the component based on the set.
In the related field of invention, Doehring teaches a structural analysis method for forming a component of a vehicle (see para 0008- wherein the generated three-dimensional meta-structure model is used in an additive manufacturing process to produce the workpiece having a meta-structure region comprising manifolds of tetrahedral elements (e.g., having four nodes, four faces), hexahedral elements, and/or fractal elements corresponding to those of the generated three-dimensional meta-structure model. See para 28- In some embodiments, the workpiece is selected from the group consisting of: a mechanical frame component for an automobile; a mechanical frame component for an aerospace system (e.g., satellite, fixed-wing aircraft, rockets, missiles, gliders, rotorcraft); a mechanical frame component for a robotic system (e.g., in manufacturing); a mechanical frame component for an instrument; and, a mechanical frame component for an unmanned vehicle system.)
varying the component based on the set. (see para 0008- obtaining or creating, by the processor, a portion of the source three-dimensional model to convert to a first three-dimensional meta-structure sub-model (e.g., a first-level Meshagon portion of the CAD model); varying, by the processor, cross-sectional areas of each of the linkages and joints of the first finite element mesh structure according to a specified profile (e.g., according a defined AlphaShape or a modified-AlphaShape (e.g., “Meta-balls”)) to produce the first three-dimensional meta-structure sub-model; see para 72- Indeed, thicknesses of individual struts and joints, chamfer angle (i.e. transitions), local and global density-porosity, optimized local stresses, and vibrations are parameters that can be received as inputs to the three-dimensional meta-structure generation process.)
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 structural analysis for analyzing a finite element model as disclosed by Devore to include a structural analysis method for forming a component of a vehicle and varying the component based on the set as taught by Doehring in the system of Devore in order to facilitate manufacturing of a new class of mechanical, loading-bearing components having optimized stress/strain three-dimensional meta-structure structures as finite-element-based 3D volumetric mesh structures. The resulting three-dimensional meta-structure structures provide high strength, ultra-light connectivity, with programmable interlinkage properties (e.g., density/porosity of linkages that provides an improved design of mechanical systems. (See Abstract and [0005], Doehring)
Regarding claim 2
The combination of Devore and Doehring teaches the structural analysis method of claim 1. Devore further teaches wherein the first element and the second elements include nodes and bars that form the shape, and each of the nodes represents zero-dimensional finite elements of the structure, each of the bars represents one-dimensional elements of the structure, and the shape represents a two-dimensional element of the structure. (See para 41-The finite element model 112 of the structure 114 includes a plurality of elements 116. Each element 116 is formed by a plurality of nodes 118 and bars 120 that form a shape 122, such as a quadrilateral shape. Optionally, the shape 122 may be various other shapes, such as triangular. The nodes 118 represent zero-dimensional finite elements, such as points. The bars 120 represent one-dimensional elements, such as lines. The shapes 122 represent two-dimensional elements, such as shells.)
Regarding claim 3
The combination of Devore and Doehring teaches the structural analysis method of claim 1. Devore does not teach forming the component that is varied.
However, Doering further teaches forming the component that is varied. (see para 0008- varying, by the processor, cross-sectional areas of each of the linkages and joints of the first finite element mesh structure according to a specified profile (e.g., according a defined AlphaShape or a modified-AlphaShape (e.g., “Meta-balls”)) to produce the first three-dimensional meta-structure sub-model; wherein the generated three-dimensional meta-structure model is used in an additive manufacturing process to produce the workpiece having a meta-structure region comprising manifolds of tetrahedral elements (e.g., having four nodes, four faces), hexahedral elements, and/or fractal elements corresponding to those of the generated three-dimensional meta-structure model)
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 structural analysis for analyzing a finite element model as disclosed by Devore to include forming the component that is varied as taught by Doehring in the system of Devore in order to facilitate manufacturing of a new class of mechanical, loading-bearing components having optimized stress/strain three-dimensional meta-structure structures as finite-element-based 3D volumetric mesh structures. The resulting three-dimensional meta-structure structures provide high strength, ultra-light connectivity, with programmable interlinkage properties (e.g., density/porosity of linkages that provides an improved design of mechanical systems. (See Abstract and [0005], Doehring)
Regarding claim 4
The combination of Devore and Doehring teaches the structural analysis method of claim 1. Devore further teaches displaying, on a display, the finite element model of the structure based on the associating. (see para 65-FIG. 13 illustrates a finite element model 112 of a structure 114 shown on the display 108, according to an embodiment of the present disclosure)
Regarding claim 5
The combination of Devore and Doehring teaches the structural analysis method of claim 1 and 4. Devore does not teach varying the finite element model displayed based on analyzing the set.
However, Doering further teaches varying the finite element model displayed based on analyzing the set. (see para 0008- obtaining or creating, by the processor, a portion of the source three-dimensional model to convert to a first three-dimensional meta-structure sub-model (e.g., a first-level Meshagon portion of the CAD model); varying, by the processor, cross-sectional areas of each of the linkages and joints of the first finite element mesh structure according to a specified profile (e.g., according a defined AlphaShape or a modified-AlphaShape (e.g., “Meta-balls”)) to produce the first three-dimensional meta-structure sub-model; see para 72- Indeed, thicknesses of individual struts and joints, chamfer angle (i.e. transitions), local and global density-porosity, optimized local stresses, and vibrations are parameters that can be received as inputs to the three-dimensional meta-structure generation process.)
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 structural analysis for analyzing a finite element model as disclosed by Devore to include varying the finite element model displayed based on analyzing the set as taught by Doehring in the system of Devore in order to facilitate manufacturing of a new class of mechanical, loading-bearing components having optimized stress/strain three-dimensional meta-structure structures as finite-element-based 3D volumetric mesh structures. The resulting three-dimensional meta-structure structures provide high strength, ultra-light connectivity, with programmable interlinkage properties (e.g., density/porosity of linkages that provides an improved design of mechanical systems. (See Abstract and [0005], Doehring)
Regarding claim 6
The combination of Devore and Doehring teaches the structural analysis method of claim 1. Devore further teaches wherein the structure is at least one of a wing or a fuselage and the vehicle is an aircraft. (See para 40-FIG. 2 illustrates a perspective view of a finite element model 112 of a structure 114. As shown, the structure 114 is a wing of an aircraft. Optionally, the structure 114 may be a fuselage, an empennage, or various other portions of the aircraft)
Regarding claim 7
The combination of Devore and Doehring teaches the structural analysis method of claim 1. Devore further teaches wherein the identifying further comprises identifying additional elements until all elements of the finite element model are identified. (see claim 6- US20200285713A1(Devore))
Regarding claim 8
The combination of Devore and Doehring teaches the structural analysis method of claim 1. Devore further teaches wherein the automatically grouping comprises: determining normal vectors for each of the first element and second elements that are identified; and grouping the set based on normal vectors that are common to the first element and the second elements. (see claim 7- US20200285713A1(Devore))
Regarding claim 9
The combination of Devore and Doehring teaches the structural analysis method of claim 1. Devore further teaches wherein the structure is a wing of an aircraft, and wherein the component comprises at least one skin, at least one spar, at least one stinger, and at least one rib. (see claim 8- US20200285713A1(Devore))
Regarding claim 10
The combination of Devore and Doehring teaches the structural analysis method of claim 1. Devore further teaches storing component data in a memory that is coupled to the model analysis control unit. (see claim 9- US20200285713A1(Devore))
Regarding claim 11
The combination of Devore and Doehring teaches the structural analysis method of claim 1. Devore further teaches wherein the structure is a wing, and the component comprises an upper skin, a lower skin, a fore spar, an aft spar, and ribs, and the associating comprises determining that the upper skin includes first normal vectors having a dominant vertical component pointing upward, the lower skin includes second normal vectors having a dominant vertical component pointing downward, the fore spar includes third normal vectors pointing forward, the aft spar includes fourth normal vectors pointing rearward, and the ribs include fifth normal vectors pointing in a lateral direction. (see claim 10- US20200285713A1(Devore))
Regarding claim 12
The combination of Devore and Doehring teaches the structural analysis method of claim 1. Devore further teaches wherein the automatically grouping the first element and the second elements into the set includes automatically grouping first elements and second elements into sets, and the associating the set with the component of the structure includes associating sets with components of the structure; the structural analysis method further comprising organizing the components, by the model analysis control unit, by centroids of elements within the components. (see claim 12- US20200285713A1(Devore))
Regarding claim 13
The combination of Devore and Doehring teaches the structural analysis method of claim 1. Devore further teaches wherein the automatically grouping the first element and the second elements into the set includes automatically grouping first elements and second elements into sets, and the associating the set with the component of the structure includes associating sets with components of the structure; the structural analysis method further comprising organizing the components, by the model analysis control unit, into bays. (see claim 13- US20200285713A1(Devore))
Regarding claim 14
The combination of Devore and Doehring teaches the structural analysis method of claim 1 and 13. Devore further teaches wherein the organizing comprises directionally sorting the first element and the second elements of the bays. (see claim 14- US20200285713A1(Devore))
Regarding claim 15
The combination of Devore and Doehring teaches the structural analysis method of claim 1 and 13. Devore further teaches wherein the organizing comprises: projecting centroids of the elements along a direction of least variance between the centroids; determining strips within the bays based on the projecting; and determining a number of spanwise elements based on the determining the strips. (see claim 15- US20200285713A1(Devore))
Regarding claim 16
Devore teaches a structural analysis system A structural analysis system and method for efficiently analyzing a finite element model)the structural analysis system comprising:
a display; (see para 65-FIG. 13 illustrates a finite element model 112 of a structure 114 shown on the display 108, according to an embodiment of the present disclosure)
store, in a finite element model database, a finite element model of a structure of the vehicle;(see para 38-The finite element model database 104 stores a finite element model of a structure. See para 40-, the structure 114 may be of a portion of another vehicle (such as an automobile), a fixed structure (such as building), or the like.)
couple the finite element model database to a model analysis control unit that comprises one or more processors;(see para 37- The model analysis control unit 100 is also coupled to a finite element model database 104, such as through one or more wired or wireless connections. See para 70-For example, the model analysis control unit 100 may be or include one or more processors that are configured to control operation thereof, as described herein.)
identify, by the model analysis control unit, a shape comprising elements of the finite element model;(see para 41-The finite element model 112 of the structure 114 includes a plurality of elements 116. Each element 116 is formed by a plurality of nodes 118 and bars 120 that form a shape 122, such as a quadrilateral shape. Optionally, the shape 122 may be various other shapes, such as triangular)
the identifying the shape includes selecting a first element, and identifying second elements that are directly connected to the first element;(see para 43-45-At 200, the model analysis control unit 100 selects a first element 116 a of the finite element model 112. The model analysis control unit 100 may select any element 116 of the finite element model 112 as the first element 116 a. After the first element 116 a is selected, the model analysis control unit 100 then identifies second elements 116 b of the finite element model 112 that directly connect to (that is, neighbor) the first element 116 a.)
automatically group, by the model analysis control unit, the first element and the second elements into a set; (see para 0006-automatically grouping, by the model analysis control unit, the elements into sets)
associating, by the model analysis control unit, the set with a component of the structure; (see para 0006-associate, by the model analysis control unit, the sets with components of the structure) and
analyze the sets; (see para 48- Based on the common normal vectors 130, the model analysis control unit 100 organizes the elements 116 into logical sets. At 214, the model analysis control unit 100 analyzes data regarding components of the structure 114)
display, on the display, the finite element model of the component; (see para 65-FIG. 13 illustrates a finite element model 112 of a structure 114 shown on the display 108, according to an embodiment of the present disclosure) and
Devore does not teach a structural analysis system for forming a component of a vehicle and vary the component displayed based on analyzing the sets.
In the related field of invention, Doehring teaches a structural analysis system for forming a component of a vehicle (see para 0008- wherein the generated three-dimensional meta-structure model is used in an additive manufacturing process to produce the workpiece having a meta-structure region comprising manifolds of tetrahedral elements (e.g., having four nodes, four faces), hexahedral elements, and/or fractal elements corresponding to those of the generated three-dimensional meta-structure model. See para 28- In some embodiments, the workpiece is selected from the group consisting of: a mechanical frame component for an automobile; a mechanical frame component for an aerospace system (e.g., satellite, fixed-wing aircraft, rockets, missiles, gliders, rotorcraft); a mechanical frame component for a robotic system (e.g., in manufacturing); a mechanical frame component for an instrument; and, a mechanical frame component for an unmanned vehicle system.)
vary the component displayed based on analyzing the sets. (see para 0008- obtaining or creating, by the processor, a portion of the source three-dimensional model to convert to a first three-dimensional meta-structure sub-model (e.g., a first-level Meshagon portion of the CAD model); varying, by the processor, cross-sectional areas of each of the linkages and joints of the first finite element mesh structure according to a specified profile (e.g., according a defined AlphaShape or a modified-AlphaShape (e.g., “Meta-balls”)) to produce the first three-dimensional meta-structure sub-model; see para 72- Indeed, thicknesses of individual struts and joints, chamfer angle (i.e. transitions), local and global density-porosity, optimized local stresses, and vibrations are parameters that can be received as inputs to the three-dimensional meta-structure generation process.)
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 structural analysis for analyzing a finite element model as disclosed by Devore to include a structural analysis system for forming a component of a vehicle and vary the component displayed based on analyzing the sets as taught by Doehring in the system of Devore in order to facilitate manufacturing of a new class of mechanical, loading-bearing components having optimized stress/strain three-dimensional meta-structure structures as finite-element-based 3D volumetric mesh structures. The resulting three-dimensional meta-structure structures provide high strength, ultra-light connectivity, with programmable interlinkage properties (e.g., density/porosity of linkages that provides an improved design of mechanical systems. (See Abstract and [0005], Doehring)
Regarding claim 17
The combination of Devore and Doehring teaches the structural analysis system of claim 16. Devore does not teach a three-dimensional printer coupled to the model analysis control unit and configured to form the component based on the finite element model of the component displayed.
In the related field of invention, Doehring further teaches a three-dimensional printer coupled to the model analysis control unit and configured to form the component based on the finite element model of the component displayed. (see para 0008- varying, by the processor, cross-sectional areas of each of the linkages and joints of the first finite element mesh structure according to a specified profile (e.g., according a defined AlphaShape or a modified-AlphaShape (e.g., “Meta-balls”)) to produce the first three-dimensional meta-structure sub-model; wherein the generated three-dimensional meta-structure model is used in an additive manufacturing process to produce the workpiece having a meta-structure region comprising manifolds of tetrahedral elements (e.g., having four nodes, four faces), hexahedral elements, and/or fractal elements corresponding to those of the generated three-dimensional meta-structure model. See para 109- Whereas a finite element mesh consists of “edges” and “nodes”, the exemplified three-dimensional meta-structure is a fully manifold, 3-D printable. See also para 121)
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 structural analysis for analyzing a finite element model as disclosed by Devore to include a three-dimensional printer coupled to the model analysis control unit and configured to form the component based on the finite element model of the component displayed as taught by Doehring in the system of Devore in order to facilitate manufacturing of a new class of mechanical, loading-bearing components having optimized stress/strain three-dimensional meta-structure structures as finite-element-based 3D volumetric mesh structures. The resulting three-dimensional meta-structure structures provide high strength, ultra-light connectivity, with programmable interlinkage properties (e.g., density/porosity of linkages that provides an improved design of mechanical systems. (See Abstract and [0005], Doehring)
Regarding claim 18
The combination of Devore and Doehring teaches the structural analysis method of claim 16. Devore further teaches wherein the elements include nodes and bars that form the shapes, and each of the nodes represents zero-dimensional finite elements of the structure, each of the bars represents one-dimensional elements of the structure, and each of the shapes represents two-dimensional elements of the structure. (See para 41-The finite element model 112 of the structure 114 includes a plurality of elements 116. Each element 116 is formed by a plurality of nodes 118 and bars 120 that form a shape 122, such as a quadrilateral shape. Optionally, the shape 122 may be various other shapes, such as triangular. The nodes 118 represent zero-dimensional finite elements, such as points. The bars 120 represent one-dimensional elements, such as lines. The shapes 122 represent two-dimensional elements, such as shells.)
Regarding claim 19
The combination of Devore and Doehring teaches the structural analysis method of claim 16. Devore further teaches wherein the one or more processors of the model analysis control unit are further configured to identify the shapes comprising the elements of the finite element model that are directly connected by: selecting a first element; identifying second elements that are directly connected to the first element;(see para 43-45-At 200, the model analysis control unit 100 selects a first element 116 a of the finite element model 112. The model analysis control unit 100 may select any element 116 of the finite element model 112 as the first element 116 a. After the first element 116 a is selected, the model analysis control unit 100 then identifies second elements 116 b of the finite element model 112 that directly connect to (that is, neighbor) the first element 116 a.)
;
identifying third elements that are directly connected to each of the second elements, wherein the third elements are not previously identified as the first element or the second elements; and identifying additional elements until all elements of the finite element model are identified. (see para 45-In particular, at 204, the model analysis control unit 100 identifies third elements that directly connect to the second elements 116 b that have not been previously identified in step 202. The model analysis control unit 100 then determines if there are additional elements present in the finite element model 112. If so, the process returns to 204, and additional elements (for example, fourth elements) that directly connect to the third elements are identified. The process continues to repeat until all elements of the finite element model 112 are identified)
Regarding claim 20
Devore teaches a structural analysis method the method comprising:
storing a finite element model of a structure of the vehicle in a finite element model database that is coupled to a model analysis control unit that comprises one or more processors;(see para 37-38-The model analysis control unit 100 is also coupled to a finite element model database 104, such as through one or more wired or wireless connections. The finite element model database 104 stores a finite element model of a structure. See para 70-the model analysis control unit 100 may be or include one or more processors)
storing component data in a memory that is coupled to the model analysis control unit;(see para 10-The structural analysis method may also include storing component data in a memory that is coupled to the model analysis control unit.)
identifying, by a model analysis control unit, shapes comprising elements of the finite element model, (see para 41-The finite element model 112 of the structure 114 includes a plurality of elements 116. Each element 116 is formed by a plurality of nodes 118 and bars 120 that form a shape 122)
wherein the identifying comprises selecting a first element, identifying second elements that directly connect to the first element, (see para 43-45-At 200, the model analysis control unit 100 selects a first element 116 a of the finite element model 112. The model analysis control unit 100 may select any element 116 of the finite element model 112 as the first element 116 a. After the first element 116 a is selected, the model analysis control unit 100 then identifies second elements 116 b of the finite element model 112 that directly connect to (that is, neighbor) the first element 116 a.)
identifying third elements that directly connect to each of the second elements, wherein the third elements are not previously identified as the first element or the second elements, and identifying additional elements until all elements of the finite element model are identified;(see para 45-In particular, at 204, the model analysis control unit 100 identifies third elements that directly connect to the second elements 116 b that have not been previously identified in step 202. The model analysis control unit 100 then determines if there are additional elements present in the finite element model 112. If so, the process returns to 204, and additional elements (for example, fourth elements) that directly connect to the third elements are identified. The process continues to repeat until all elements of the finite element model 112 are identified)
automatically grouping, by the model analysis control unit, the elements into sets, wherein the automatically grouping comprises determining normal vectors for each of the elements that are identified, and grouping the sets based on normal vectors that are common to the elements;(see para 0006-0008- automatically grouping, by the model analysis control unit, the elements into sets. In at least one embodiment, the automatically grouping step includes determining normal vectors for each of the elements that are identified, and grouping the sets based on a similarity between normal vectors that are common to the elements.)
associating, by the model analysis control unit, the sets with components of the structure;(see para 0006- associating, by the model analysis control unit, the sets with components of the structure)
organizing the components, by the model analysis control unit, into bays, wherein the organizing comprises projecting centroids of the elements along a direction of least variance between the centroids, determining strips within the bays based on the projecting, and determining a number of spanwise elements based on the determining the strips;(see para 12- As one example, the structural analysis method includes organizing the components, by the model analysis control unit, into bays, such as between individual ribs. The organizing includes directionally sorting the elements of the bays. In at least one embodiment, the organizing includes projecting centroids of the elements along a direction of the least variance between the centroids, determining strips within the bays based on the projecting, and determining a number of spanwise elements based on the determining the strips step.)
displaying, on a display, the finite element model of the structure based on the associating and organizing; (see para 65-FIG. 13 illustrates a finite element model 112 of a structure 114 shown on the display 108, according to an embodiment of the present disclosure)
Devore does not teach a structural analysis method for forming a component of a vehicle and varying the finite element model of the structure; and forming the structure based on varying the finite element model.
In the related field of invention, Doehring teaches a structural analysis method for forming a component of a vehicle (see para 0008- wherein the generated three-dimensional meta-structure model is used in an additive manufacturing process to produce the workpiece having a meta-structure region comprising manifolds of tetrahedral elements (e.g., having four nodes, four faces), hexahedral elements, and/or fractal elements corresponding to those of the generated three-dimensional meta-structure model. See para 28- In some embodiments, the workpiece is selected from the group consisting of: a mechanical frame component for an automobile; a mechanical frame component for an aerospace system (e.g., satellite, fixed-wing aircraft, rockets, missiles, gliders, rotorcraft); a mechanical frame component for a robotic system (e.g., in manufacturing); a mechanical frame component for an instrument; and, a mechanical frame component for an unmanned vehicle system.)
varying the finite element model of the structure; and forming the structure based on varying the finite element model. (see para 0008- varying, by the processor, cross-sectional areas of each of the linkages and joints of the first finite element mesh structure according to a specified profile (e.g., according a defined AlphaShape or a modified-AlphaShape (e.g., “Meta-balls”)) to produce the first three-dimensional meta-structure sub-model; wherein the generated three-dimensional meta-structure model is used in an additive manufacturing process to produce the workpiece having a meta-structure region comprising manifolds of tetrahedral elements (e.g., having four nodes, four faces), hexahedral elements, and/or fractal elements corresponding to those of the generated three-dimensional meta-structure model)
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 structural analysis for analyzing a finite element model as disclosed by Devore to include a structural analysis method for forming a component of a vehicle and varying the finite element model of the structure; and forming the structure based on varying the finite element model as taught by Doehring in the system of Devore in order to facilitate manufacturing of a new class of mechanical, loading-bearing components having optimized stress/strain three-dimensional meta-structure structures as finite-element-based 3D volumetric mesh structures. The resulting three-dimensional meta-structure structures provide high strength, ultra-light connectivity, with programmable interlinkage properties (e.g., density/porosity of linkages that provides an improved design of mechanical systems. (See Abstract and [0005], Doehring)
Relevant prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Druckman et al. US 20160125107 A1.
Discussing the Finite Element Model (FEM) techniques to determine the stresses imparted to an aircraft frame structure and subsequent fatigue analysis codes to determine the maximum operating stresses the aircraft frame structure can withstand over its intended service life.
Laverty et al. US 20200272704 A1.
Discussing a computer that generates a computer model based on the output data of a finite element analysis (FEA) performed on a structure that has experienced a break up event. The output data is processed to generate a debris model. The debris model comprises data defining the structure, as well as any fragments or pieces of debris caused by forces exerted on the structure during the break up event. The debris model can then be utilized as input data to generate other computer models.
Conclusion
9. All claims 1-20 are rejected.
10. 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
Prosecution Insights