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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed on 10/30/24 are accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/30/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: BSR in line 1 should be buzz, squeak, and rattle (BSR). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: BSR in line 1 should be buzz, squeak, and rattle (BSR). Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental steps involving extracting material information of parts forming a contact surface based on the door trim design data and the material database, and determining a risk of friction noise between matching parts for each contact surface based on the material database; determining a contact surface having a squeak risk index or rattle risk index higher than or equal to a preset threshold value as an expected risk group based on the material information, the risk of friction noise between matching parts, and a contact point analysis (CPA) matrix for the each contact surface, deriving an improvement measure for the expected risk group based on the BSR improvement history information, determines the risk of friction noise between matching parts by considering at least one or more of temperature, humidity, material, load, and speed, determines the squeak risk index based on a design data gap between matching parts, a friction occurrence possibility, and the risk of friction noise between matching parts for the each contact surface, determines the rattle risk index based on the design data gap between matching parts, a fastening condition, a contact occurrence possibility, and a contact surface for the each contact surface, confirming a validity of the BSR pre-validation based on a single-item validation result for a door trim prototype produced based on the door trim design data, and the expected risk group, wherein the validity of the BSR pre-validation is a ratio of the number of noise cases confirmed at the same site as the expected risk group to the number of noise cases confirmed in the single-item validation result, wherein the number of noise cases which are not caused due to a design structure is excluded from the number of noise cases confirmed in the single-item validation result (claims 1-14), these limitations as described in [0062]-[0070], [0080]-[0088] is recited in high level of generality constitutes as a mental process, such as an evaluation or judgement, that can be performed in the human mind. The claim(s) also recite(s) mathematical concepts of **, these limitations as described in [0064]-[0078] constitutes details of mathematical calculations of the material model, physical properties, thus, it falls into the “mathematical concepts” group of abstract ideas see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), (claims 19, 21-28, 32 and 34-35).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of an information collection unit obtaining door trim design data, a material database, and buzz, squeak, and rattle (BSR) improvement history information; a step of obtaining door trim design data; a step of obtaining a material database, and buzz, squeak, and rattle (BSR) improvement history information (claims 1 and 8) represent mere data collection which is an insignificant extrasolution activity. The material analysis unit, pre-validation unit, improvement measure derivation unit, validity confirmation unit (claims 1-5) are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)). Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the insignificant extra-solution activity of data collection is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, see mpep 2106.05(d), infra applied prior art, references cited. The material analysis unit, pre-validation unit, improvement measure derivation unit, validity confirmation unit are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)). The “field of use” limitation do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP2106.05(d)).
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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 limitation(s) is/are: improvement measure derivation unit and information collection unit in claim 1, material analysis unit in claims 1-2, pre-validation unit in claims 1 and 3-4, validity confirmation unit in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, set forth in this Office action, is overcome.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 1-7
Regarding claim 1, Cho et al. “a study on the BSR pre-validation process through the analysis of door trim contact point” discloses door-trim data were used to distinguish the level of contact-side friction between door-trim components and to identify areas where contact and friction noise was expected through product cross-sectional analysis. Finally, after analyzing the BSR risk index through a CPA Matrix, design-structure improvement measures were reviewed based on a database of past improvement cases, US7289635 discloses a method and system for determining locations in a design of an assembly likely to result in buzz, rattle, squeak ("BSR"), and/or other noise conditions. The invention uses a finite element model to represent a design. BSR effects are predicted based upon analysis performed on multiple design models. Users may engage in real-time "what if" analyses to determine the effects of various design and component changes on noise source characteristics. Additional intelligence may be applied to limit the number of model points subject to evaluation. Displacements, contact velocities, and force responses at selectively identified subsets of interesting points can evaluate noise characteristics. An "as designed" model may evaluate noise source characteristics at the beginning of the life of an assembly. Degraded models can determine the effects of aging and use. A restored model may evaluate the influence of optimal fastener design on BSR characteristics for assembly resulting from fastener degradation. US20230242751 discloses Buzz, Squeak, Rattle (BSR) performance test mentioned herein were performed as follows: BSR performance test for the thermoplastic compositions were performed using Ziegler Instruments SSP-04 test bench instrument. The thermoplastic compositions were rated/scored using a Risk Priority Number (RPN) rating system. The RPN rating system, estimates the risk of a material pair creating noise when sliding against each other, and is an accepted rating system in the automotive industry for evaluation of automotive interior materials. RPN score of a material, when paired (e.g. slided) against a second material (can be the same material (, e.g. the two material that are slided against each other have same composition) or different material) is calculated as RPN=(1×impulse grade+1×acceleration grade+2×groan grade)/4, the combination of the cited prior arts does not describe:
a material analysis unit extracting material information of parts forming a contact surface based on the door trim design data and the material database, and determining a risk of friction noise between matching parts for each contact surface based on the material database; a pre-validation unit determining a contact surface having a squeak risk index or rattle risk index higher than or equal to a preset threshold value as an expected risk group based on the material information, the risk of friction noise between matching parts, and a contact point analysis (CPA) matrix for the each contact surface
Claims 8-14
Regarding claim 8, Cho et al. “a study on the BSR pre-validation process through the analysis of door trim contact point” discloses door-trim data were used to distinguish the level of contact-side friction between door-trim components and to identify areas where contact and friction noise was expected through product cross-sectional analysis. Finally, after analyzing the BSR risk index through a CPA Matrix, design-structure improvement measures were reviewed based on a database of past improvement cases, US7289635 discloses a method and system for determining locations in a design of an assembly likely to result in buzz, rattle, squeak ("BSR"), and/or other noise conditions. The invention uses a finite element model to represent a design. BSR effects are predicted based upon analysis performed on multiple design models. Users may engage in real-time "what if" analyses to determine the effects of various design and component changes on noise source characteristics. Additional intelligence may be applied to limit the number of model points subject to evaluation. Displacements, contact velocities, and force responses at selectively identified subsets of interesting points can evaluate noise characteristics. An "as designed" model may evaluate noise source characteristics at the beginning of the life of an assembly. Degraded models can determine the effects of aging and use. A restored model may evaluate the influence of optimal fastener design on BSR characteristics for assembly resulting from fastener degradation. US20230242751 discloses Buzz, Squeak, Rattle (BSR) performance test mentioned herein were performed as follows: BSR performance test for the thermoplastic compositions were performed using Ziegler Instruments SSP-04 test bench instrument. The thermoplastic compositions were rated/scored using a Risk Priority Number (RPN) rating system. The RPN rating system, estimates the risk of a material pair creating noise when sliding against each other, and is an accepted rating system in the automotive industry for evaluation of automotive interior materials. RPN score of a material, when paired (e.g. slided) against a second material (can be the same material (, e.g. the two material that are slided against each other have same composition) or different material) is calculated as RPN=(1×impulse grade+1×acceleration grade+2×groan grade)/4, the combination of the cited prior arts does not describe:
a material information extracting step of extracting material information of parts forming a contact surface based on the door trim design data and the material database; a material analyzing step of determining a risk of friction noise between matching parts for each contact surface based on the material database; a BSR pre-validating step of determining contact surfaces having a squeak risk index or rattle risk index higher than or equal to a preset threshold value based on the material information, the risk of friction noise between matching parts, and a contact point analysis (CPA) matrix for the each contact surface as an expected risk group
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US8401827 discloses a processing device and a method for processing structure data representing a physical structure are disclosed to obtain information about physical properties of the physical structure faster and with high quality and accuracy. The processing device for processing structure data representing a physical structure comprises an obtainer module for obtaining structure data representing a physical structure; a parts defining module for subdividing said structure data into at least two parts including a connection part and a material part; a meshing module for generating a mesh model approximating said physical structure by transforming said connection part and said material part into mesh elements having different sizes, wherein the mesh element sizes of said connection part are smaller than the mesh element sizes of said material part; and a processing module for processing said mesh model to estimate physical properties of said physical structure.
US6160758 discloses a method of localizing signals utilizing auto-correlation functions and cross correlation functions includes: collecting data at a plurality of input channels; filtering the data collected from the plurality of input channels in order to identify a primary signal; identifying at least two lags and at least one reference lag in a function of the data; and estimating relative travel times of the data.
US5675505 discloses a computer-implemented apparatus and method for operating vibrational testing equipment which conducts vibrational testing upon automobile components. Raw engine acceleration data is gathered from a running car so that a sine on random calculation may be performed upon that data. The sine on random calculation uses peak hold envelope data and sin tone data as determined from the acceleration data. Thereupon, an iterative equalization technique operates upon the peak hold envelope data and sine tone data to generate a vibrational testing specification. The vibrational testing specification defines how the vibrational testing equipment should operate by specifying such parameters as the gain, the sweep duration, and the time to run the vibrational test in order to achieve a particular reliability and confidence level.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert E. Fennema can be reached on (571)272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/JASON LIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights