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 .
This office action is responsive to the applicant’s arguments filed on 08/29/2025.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-14 are pending.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, and 11-14 are amended. Claims 3 and 10 are canceled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Regarding rejections under 35 USC § 112:
The rejection has been updated in view of amendments.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC § 101:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter. Therefore, all arguments are addressed in the 101 rejection of the claims below.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC § 103:
With respect to the remarks, page 3-4, regarding claim 1, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because Birkert teaches the function of the scaling parameter.
To clarify, according to the description in specification page 14 para 3, the scaling parameter under broadest reasonable interpretation amounts to controlling relevant parameters of the model to scale or deform the model. Therefore, Birkert’s disclosure for controlling the force and relevant parameters to control the deformation of the model (Birkert, [0050]: “The deformation forces may be point forces, line forces and/or area forces. … The deformation forces are varied with regard to strength, direction, location of the introduction of the force and/or possible further parameters, until the target configuration is achieved under elastic deformation of the workpiece.”) teaches this function of the scaling parameter.
With respect to the remarks, page 4-5, regarding claim 4, Applicant’s arguments are based on newly amended subject matter. Therefore, all arguments are addressed in the 103 rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: There should be a comma between the limitations “in the material points of the FEM mesh” and “the associated strain is assigned to an elastic deformation of the material” and should read “controls an extent to which, in the material points of the FEM mesh, the associated strain is assigned to an elastic deformation of the material”
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: The term “optionally” makes it unclear if the limitation “manufacturing an assembly comprising the part” is required to be performed. The term “optionally” should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-14 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “an assembly process”, “a respective forming process”, “respective forming processes”, “a forming process”, “at least one forming process”; “manufacturing method”, “computer-implemented method”. It is not clear which process/method each process/method is referring to and what each process/method performs. In addition, the followings are not clear:
The limitation “manufacturing method for designing and manufacturing a tool” is not clear because the term “manufacturing method” is used to refer to both designing and manufacturing of a tool.
The limitation “analysing an assembly process” is not clear because the claim later recites “simulating … the assembly process”.
In the limitation “at least one of the at least one of two or more parts”, “at least one of” is recited twice.
The limitation “at least one formed part” is not clear if it is referring to the “at least one associated formed part (3)”.
Claim recites that a forming process (2) generates at least one associated formed part (3) while it also recites that the at least one forming process (2) generates a free part simulated geometry (31). It is not clear what the forming process generates.
Claim recites that the assembly process (4) generates an assembled part (5) while it also recites that the assembly process (4) generates an assembled part simulation model (50). It is not clear what the assembly process generates. It is also not clear whether the assembled part (5)/assembled part simulation model (50) is generated from formed parts (3) or from free part simulated geometries (31) of the first and second parts.
Therefore, Examiner suggests amending the claim as follows if accurate and will interpret the claim as follows for the examining purposes:
1. (presently amended) A computer-implemented method for designing and manufacturing a tool for manufacturing a part, comprising:
simulating a forming process for at least one first formed part and at least one second formed part, obtaining a first free part simulated geometry of the at least one first formed part and a second free part simulated geometry of the at least one second formed part;
simulating an assembly process comprising having as input the first free part simulated geometry and the second free part simulated geometry and generating an assembled part simulation model (50) corresponding to an optimised adapted reference geometry (71); and
manufacturing the tool with a shape defined by the optimised adapted reference geometry (71),
wherein the forming process comprises generating at least one formed part (3) from a sheet metal blank (1) and generating a free part simulated geometry (31) of the at least one formed part (3) by simulating an approximate simulation, wherein the approximate simulation comprises:
having as input a reference model representing a reference geometry (10) of the at least one formed part (3);
determining an FEM mesh representing the reference geometry (10);
for material points of the FEM mesh, based on the reference geometry (10), determining associated strain values from a geometric transformation required to bring a flat sheet of material into the shape according to the reference geometry (10);
for the material points of the FEM mesh, based on the associated strain values and on material properties of the blank (1), determining associated stress values;
based on the FEM mesh with the associated stress values, determining displacements of mesh points that bring the mesh into an equilibrium state with regard to the stresses;
the FEM mesh in this equilibrium state being a result of the approximate simulation, that is, the free part simulated geometry (31); and
controlling a scaling parameter to control an extent to which the free part simulated geometry (31) deviates from the reference geometry (10), thereby varying a degree of deformation taking place in the approximate simulation and varying an overall deformation of the part geometry with the scaling parameter.
Claims 12-14 are substantially similar to claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected for the similar reasons.
Claims 2, 4-9, and 11 are rejected by the virtue of their dependency on the rejected claim(s) or by reciting similar issues. Examiner suggests amending any dependent claims reciting similar issues or making them consistent with the amended independent claims. Any amendment should be supported.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites the limitation “a remaining portion being assigned to plastic deformation”. Specification page 13 lines 1-3 discloses that a portion of the strain is assigned to elastic deformation and the remaining portion is assigned to plastic deformation. Therefore, claim 4 is interpreted as follows: “wherein the scaling parameter, in the step of determining associated stress values, controls an extent to which, in the material points of the FEM mesh, a portion of the associated strain is assigned to an elastic deformation of the material, with a remaining portion being assigned to plastic deformation, and thereby influences the magnitude of the associated stress values.”
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 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 12 is directed to a “system” but is lacking a structure. Examiner suggests adding in a structure such as a processor or a memory to provide a structure. Claim 13 is directed to a “computer program” which is software per se. Examiner suggests amending it to a computer program product and adding in a structure such as a processor or a memory to provide a structure.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11, and 14 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claim 12 is directed to a system, which is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. Claim 13 is directed to a computer program product, which is a manufacture, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-14 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 2A Prong 1: The following limitations recite abstract ideas:
The limitation “simulating a forming process for at least one first formed part and at least one second formed part, obtaining a first free part simulated geometry of the at least one first formed part and a second free part simulated geometry of the at least one second formed part” is defined by the limitations below. Therefore, see the analysis below.
The limitation “determining an FEM mesh representing the reference geometry (10)” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a 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. For example, determining a FEM mesh covers someone mentally making an observation about the FEM mesh.
The limitation “for material points of the FEM mesh, based on the reference geometry (10), determining associated strain values from a geometric transformation required to bring a flat sheet of material into the shape according to the reference geometry (10)” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a 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. For example, this covers a person observing the model and making a mental judgment about strain values.
The limitation “for the material points of the FEM mesh, based on the associated strain values and on material properties of the blank (1), determining associated stress values” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a 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. For example, this covers a person observing the strain values and making a mental judgment about stress values.
The limitation “based on the FEM mesh with the associated stress values, determining displacements of mesh points that bring the mesh into an equilibrium state with regard to the stresses” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a 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. For example, this covers a person observing the stress values and making a mental judgment about displacements.
The limitation “the FEM mesh in this equilibrium state being a result of the approximate simulation, that is, the free part simulated geometry (31)” merely further limits the resulting FEM mesh from the previous limitations. Therefore, the same analysis as the previous limitations is applicable.
The limitation “controlling a scaling parameter to control an extent to which the free part simulated geometry (31) deviates from the reference geometry (10), thereby varying a degree of deformation taking place in the approximate simulation and varying an overall deformation of the part geometry with the scaling parameter” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a 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. For example, this covers a person scaling or deforming the geometry mentally or with a pen and paper according to a scaling parameter.
The limitation “generating a free part simulated geometry (31) of the at least one formed part (3) by simulating an approximate simulation” covers a mental process because the approximate simulation and generating a free part simulated geometry (31) are mental processes as described above.
The limitation “simulating an assembly process comprising having as input the first free part simulated geometry and the second free part simulated geometry and generating an assembled part simulation model (50) corresponding to an optimised adapted reference geometry (71)” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a 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, but for the recitation of using a computer. Specification page 8 para 2 discloses that the assembly process “involves joining or assembling the two parts by some kind of joining technology. This covers a person simulating joining some simple parts mentally or with a pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2: The following limitations recite additional elements:
“wherein the forming process comprises generating at least one formed part (3) from a sheet metal blank (1)”
“having as input a reference model representing a reference geometry (10) of the at least one formed part (3)”
“manufacturing the tool with a shape defined by the optimised adapted reference geometry (71)”
However, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element “wherein the forming process comprises generating at least one formed part (3) from a sheet metal blank (1)” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity. Specifically, this amounts to a pre-solution activity of generating a formed part from a sheet metal blank in order to perform a simulation on it. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional element “having as input a reference model representing a reference geometry (10) of the at least one formed part (3)” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is a data gathering activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). It also amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer because this amounts to merely inputting data into a simulation software. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element “manufacturing the tool with a shape defined by the optimised adapted reference geometry (71)” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, this amounts to merely generally applying the resulting shape to manufacturing of a tool. See MPEP 2106.05(h). It also amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity. Specifically, this amounts to a post-solution activity of merely manufacturing a tool based on the result. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional element “wherein the forming process comprises generating at least one formed part (3) from a sheet metal blank (1)” amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity which is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as shown by the following references which teaches manufacturing a die tool according to the shape determined by simulation:
Birkert et al. (US20190291163A1) ([0002]: “Formed parts of sheet metal, in particular parts of the bodywork for vehicles, are generally produced by a drawing technique, for example, deep drawing or bodywork pressing. For this, the semifinished product, known as a sheet blank, is placed into a multipart forming tool. By a press, in which the forming tool is clamped, the formed part is formed.”) ([0064]-[0065]: “Many of the simulation-based investigations were performed on a relatively simple workpiece geometry in the form of a hat profile W according to FIG. 1. The starting workpiece, a planar metal sheet of a high-strength steel material with material designation HDT1200M and with a sheet thickness of 1 mm was used. … For comparison purposes, a forming process that simulates inter alia a drawing operation and also the springback of the workpiece was simulated with the aid of the FE software AUTOFORM®.”)
Govik et al. (“Finite element simulation of the manufacturing process chain of a sheet metal assembly”) (Pg. 1453, Abstract: “To resolve this matter it is here proposed to extend the FE-simulation of the stamping process, to also include the first level subassembly stage. In this study a methodology of sequentially simulating each step in the manufacturing process of an assembly is proposed.”) (Pg. 1454, Right column: “During the manufacturing process of a sheet metal assembly each component is subjected to a number of operations that will alter its properties. … The sheet forming process can include multiple stages of stamping, including trimming or other type of forming operations.”) (Pg. 1457, Right column: “5.1. Forming All sheet metal components are modelled using fully integrated quadrilateral shell elements with seven through-thickness integration points. This number of integration points was found from a convergence study. The initial size of a blank element is about 6 mm and with three levels of adaptation it result in a minimum element size of 1.5 mm in critical areas. The contacts are defined by a penalty based contact algorithm and Coulomb’s law of friction, where the friction coefficient is set to 0.15. The friction coefficient was chosen after an inverse analysis where the sheet draw-in results from the simulation were compared to experimental data.”);
Sasahara (JP2005266892A) (Pg. 4, Para. 5: “The storage device 20 of the computer 1 stores reference design shape data that is a target shape of the plastic workpiece to be manufactured (reference design shape data storage unit 23). In addition, initial mold shape data for manufacturing a plastic processed product having this shape, that is, CAD data of the mold is stored (mold CAD data storage unit 21). Furthermore, the data which set the molding conditions by the metal mold | die containing the data regarding the plastic work product manufactured with a metal mold | die are memorize | stored (molding condition data storage part 22). … For example, when a plate-shaped blank material is pressed, a phenomenon occurs in which a processed product returns to an angle shallower than the angle of a portion bent at a predetermined angle when released.”) (Pg. 2, Para. 4-5: “Here, a specific example when the spring back occurs will be described with reference to FIG. FIGS. 8A to 8D are diagrams showing a press forming process of a plastic processed product. First, the blank material 101 is set in the mold (FIG. 8A). Then, the blank material 101 is hold | maintained to a metal mold | die using the aperture bead 103 formed in the blank holder 102 (FIG.8 (b)). Subsequently, the blank material 101 is drawn by the die 104 and the punch 105 by pressing (FIG. 8C). Thereafter, by releasing the mold, a plastic processed product is completed (FIG. 8D). … First, a mold is designed based on the design shape of a plastic processed product, that is, the shape when processed into a product, and the shape of the plastic processed product manufactured with this mold is calculated by simulation.”) (Pg. 3, Para. 2: “With such a configuration, first, the shape of the plastic workpiece formed from the mold is calculated from the mold FEM mesh data by simulation.”); and
The additional element “having as input a reference model representing a reference geometry (10) of the at least one formed part (3)” amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, it amounts to a data gathering activity which is akin to a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. Such activities do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added))”.
The additional element “manufacturing the tool with a shape defined by the optimised adapted reference geometry (71)” amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Furthermore, it amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity which is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as shown by the following references which teaches manufacturing a die tool according to the shape determined by simulation:
Sasahara (JP2005266892A) (Pg. 2, Para 5: “Then, the above correction is performed until the dimensional accuracy is good, and the mold is actually manufactured with the mold shape finally improved.”); and
Karafillis et al. (US6353768B1) (Col. 2, Lines 19-24: “The user can also modify the shape of the workpiece, the shape of the forming tool including drawbeads, and the material of the workpiece, to improve the final shape of the workpiece. After the finite element simulation produces an acceptable final workpiece shape, an actual workpiece can be formed with actual tools based on the simulation.”).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 2: Claim 2 merely further limits the step of determining associated strain values recited in claim 1. Accordingly, the same analysis used in claim 1 is applicable.
Regarding claim 4: Claim 4 merely further limits the scaling parameter recited in claim 1. Accordingly, the same analysis used in claim 1 is applicable.
Regarding claim 5: Claim 5 merely further limits the reference model recited in claim 1. Accordingly, the same analysis used in claim 1 is applicable.
Regarding claim 6: Claim 6 merely further limits the material properties recited in claim 1. Accordingly, the same analysis used in claim 1 is applicable.
Regarding claim 7:
The limitation “iteratively modifying the reference model and performing the forming simulation (20) and assembly simulation (40) until the assembled part simulation model (50) satisfies an optimisation criterion, thereby corresponding to the optimised adapted reference geometry (71)” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a 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. Modifying a reference model covers someone modifying the model mentally or with a pen and paper. In addition, the forming simulation (20) and assembly simulation (40) amount to a mental process without significantly more as discussed in claim 1. Therefore, iteratively performing such processes until an optimization criterion is satisfied is a mental process.
Regarding claim 8:
The limitation “automatically varying one or more shape parameters, in particular exactly one shape parameter, of one part of an assembly” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a 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, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, varying a parameter covers someone mentally modifying a parameter.
The limitation “for each such variation performing the forming simulation (20) and the assembly simulation (40), thereby creating a plurality of corresponding assembled part simulation models (50)” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a 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, but for the recitation of a computer. Performing the forming simulation and assembly simulation and creating an assembled part simulation model amount to a mental process without significantly more as discussed in claim 1.
The limitation “determining a degree of variation of an assembled part simulated geometry (51) over the plurality of assembled part simulation models (50)” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a 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. For example, determining a degree covers someone mentally making an observation or an evaluation about the degree.
The limitation “visually displaying this degree variation to a user, in particular overlaid over a visual representation of the part” is an additional element.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element “visually displaying this degree variation to a user, in particular overlaid over a visual representation of the part” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Specifically, this is a post-solution activity of displaying a result. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Even when viewed in combination, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional element “visually displaying this degree variation to a user, in particular overlaid over a visual representation of the part” an insignificant extra-solution activity which is akin to a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of presenting offers and gathering statistics. 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”.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 8 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 9:
The limitation “wherein the second part is generated by the forming process (2), and a corresponding free part simulated geometry (31) of the second part is generated by the forming simulation (20) being the approximate simulation” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a 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. Generating a free part simulated geometry by the forming simulation amount to a mental process as discussed in claim 1.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that would have provided practical application of or have added significantly more to the cited abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 9 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 11:
The limitations “manufacturing the part with a shape defined by the optimised adapted reference geometry (71)” and is an additional element that amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use which does not integrate judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
It also amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity that is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as shown by the following references which teaches manufacturing an assembly after simulation:
Karafillis et al. (US6353768B1) (Col. 2, Lines 22-24: “After the finite element simulation produces an acceptable final workpiece shape, an actual workpiece can be formed with actual tools based on the simulation.”); and
Govik et al. (“Finite element simulation of the manufacturing process chain of a sheet metal assembly”) (Fig. 4 shows the parts manufactured experimentally vs in simulation) (Pg. 1453, Abstract: “Each step of the proposed methodology is described, and a validation of the prediction capabilities is performed by comparing with a physically manufactured assembly.”) (Pg. 1461, Right column: “The comparison between predicted and physical test results shows that it is possible to achieve accurate results. Thus, the proposed simulation procedure may be a useful tool to evaluate both the manufacturing processes and the final assembly.”)
The limitation “manufacturing an assembly comprising the part” is an additional element that amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use which does not integrate judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
It also amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity that is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as shown by the following references which teaches manufacturing an assembly after simulation:
Sasahara (US20030050765A1) ([0007]: “an actual die assembly is manufactured according to the shape of the workpiece (step S105.)”) ([0087]: “Finally, if the value falls in the range, the processing shown in FIG. 6 is finished to move to actual die assembly manufacturing step shown in the step S5 of FIG. 5.”); and
Govik et al. (“Finite element simulation of the manufacturing process chain of a sheet metal assembly”) (Fig. 6 shows the manufacture assembly.) (Pg. 1453, Abstract: “Each step of the proposed methodology is described, and a validation of the prediction capabilities is performed by comparing with a physically manufactured assembly.”) (Pg. 1461, Right column: “The comparison between predicted and physical test results shows that it is possible to achieve accurate results. Thus, the proposed simulation procedure may be a useful tool to evaluate both the manufacturing processes and the final assembly.”).
Claims 12 and 13 are substantially similar to claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 1. Therefore, the similar analysis as claim 1 is applicable.
Furthermore, the limitation “the step of storing, on the computer readable medium, computer-executable instructions which when executed by a processor of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform the computer-implemented method steps …” is an additional element.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element “the step of storing, on the computer readable medium, computer-executable instructions which when executed by a processor of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform the computer-implemented method steps …” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Storing instructions is a generic computer function. Computer readable medium is a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional element 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 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 14 is not eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 9, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birkert et al. (US20190291163A1), hereinafter Birkert, in view of Govik et al. (“Finite element simulation of the manufacturing process chain of a sheet metal assembly”), hereinafter Govik, in further view of Sasahara (JP2005266892A).
Regarding claim 1, Birkert discloses
wherein the forming process comprises generating at least one formed part (3) from a sheet metal blank (1) ([0002]: “Formed parts of sheet metal, in particular parts of the bodywork for vehicles, are generally produced by a drawing technique, for example, deep drawing or bodywork pressing. For this, the semifinished product, known as a sheet blank, is placed into a multipart forming tool. By a press, in which the forming tool is clamped, the formed part is formed.”) ([0064]-[0065]: “Many of the simulation-based investigations were performed on a relatively simple workpiece geometry in the form of a hat profile W according to FIG. 1. The starting workpiece, a planar metal sheet of a high-strength steel material with material designation HDT1200M and with a sheet thickness of 1 mm was used. … For comparison purposes, a forming process that simulates inter alia a drawing operation and also the springback of the workpiece was simulated with the aid of the FE software AUTOFORM®.”) and
generating a free part simulated geometry (31) of the at least one formed part (3) by simulating an approximate simulation ([0042]: “An important step of the method is that of carrying out a non-linear structural-mechanical finite-element simulation on the workpiece.”) ([0014]: “carrying out a non-linear structural-mechanical finite-element simulation on the workpiece, the workpiece being deformed by the non-linear structural-mechanical finite-element simulation … wherein the following steps being carried out in the non-linear structural-mechanical finite-element simulation defining at least three fixing points (FIX1, FIX2, FIX3, FIX4) of the first configuration or the second configuration … approximating the configuration of the workpiece to the target configuration outside the fixing points by calculating forces or displacements while accounting for the stiffness of the workpiece until the target configuration is achieved”), wherein the approximate simulation comprises:
having as input a reference model representing a reference geometry (10) of the at least one formed part (3) ([0066]: “The desired target geometry of the finished formed part is also referred to as the zero geometry of the workpiece.”);
determining an FEM mesh representing the reference geometry (10) ([0041]: “One possibility is to describe each of the first configuration and the second configurations by a finite element mesh”) ([0042]: “In the course of this simulation, the workpiece is deformed from the first or second configuration into a target configuration by using the aforementioned deviation vectors of the deviation vector field.”);
for material points of the FEM mesh, based on the reference geometry (10), determining associated strain values from a geometric transformation required to bring a flat sheet of material into the shape according to the reference geometry (10) ([0002]: “The finished formed parts are generally produced from flat sheet blanks by a number of forming stages such as drawing, restriking, adjusting and the like combined with trimming steps.”) ([0014]: “simulating a forming operation on the workpiece by a zero tool (NWZ) to produce a first configuration (K1) of the workpiece (W)”) ([0014]: “the following steps being carried out in the non-linear structural-mechanical finite-element simulation defining at least three fixing points (FIX1, FIX2, FIX3, FIX4) of the first configuration or the second configuration … approximating the configuration of the workpiece to the target configuration outside the fixing points by calculating forces or displacements while accounting for the stiffness of the workpiece until the target configuration is achieved”) ([0083]: “The force-displacement relationship of an overall structure is: F=K·U (1) where F=column vector of all element node forces”);
for the material points of the FEM mesh, based on the associated strain values and on material properties of the blank (1), determining associated stress values ([0084]: “In the non-linear FEM, account is taken inter alia of geometrical non-linearities as a consequence of large rotations. For this, strains are described with the aid of Green-Lagrange strains.”) ([0087]: “In the derivation of the structural stiffness matrix K, the Green-Lagrange strain leads to an additional term, the stress matrix Kσ”);
based on the FEM mesh with the associated stress values, determining displacements of mesh points that bring the mesh into an equilibrium state with regard to the stresses ([0093]: “For a discretized mechanical problem, the equilibrium condition for the derivation of the structural stiffness matrix K is …”) ([0105]: “Consequently, taking into account the stiffness of the workpiece by the stiffness matrix K as a function of the stress matrix Kσ when using non-linear FEM for area and development equality of the correction geometry can lead to the zero geometry.”) ([0129]: “The components (v2, v3) (displacement vector) required for the unique definition of the sought target displacement vectors are obtained from the geometrically non-linear workpiece behavior, which can be taken into account by the stiffness matrix K as a function of the stress matrix Kσ”);
the FEM mesh in this equilibrium state being a result of the approximate simulation, that is, the free part simulated geometry (31) ([0014]: “approximating the configuration of the workpiece to the target configuration outside the fixing points by calculating forces or displacements while accounting for the stiffness of the workpiece until the target configuration is achieved”); and
controlling a scaling parameter to control an extent to which the free part simulated geometry (31) deviates from the reference geometry (10), thereby varying a degree of deformation taking place in the approximate simulation and varying an overall deformation of the part geometry with the scaling parameter ([0050]: “The deformation forces may be point forces, line forces and/or area forces. … The deformation forces are varied with regard to strength, direction, location of the introduction of the force and/or possible further parameters, until the target configuration is achieved under elastic deformation of the workpiece.”).
Examiner notes that according to the description in specification page 14 para 3, the scaling parameter under broadest reasonable interpretation amounts to controlling relevant parameters of the model to scale or deform the model. Therefore, Birkert’s disclosure for controlling the force and relevant parameters to control the deformation of the model amounts to controlling a scaling parameter to control an extent to which the free part simulated geometry (31) deviates from the reference geometry (10), thereby varying a degree of deformation taking place in the approximate simulation and varying an overall deformation of the part geometry with the scaling parameter.
Birkert does not explicitly disclose
simulating a forming process for at least one first formed part and at least one second formed part, obtaining a first free part simulated geometry of the at least one first formed part and a second free part simulated geometry of the at least one second formed part;
simulating an assembly process comprising having as input the first free part simulated geometry and the second free part simulated geometry and generating an assembled part simulation model (50) corresponding to an optimised adapted reference geometry (71); and
manufacturing the tool with a shape defined by the optimised 15 adapted reference geometry (71).
However, Govik teaches
simulating a forming process for at least one first formed part and at least one second formed part, obtaining a first free part simulated geometry of the at least one first formed part and a second free part simulated geometry of the at least one second formed part (Fig. 3 shows performing the finite element simulation on two or more parts.) (Pg. 1457, Right column – Pg. 1458, Left column: “When the die tools are being removed the deformed blank undergoes yet another substantial geometric change due to springback. … In the chosen case study, components 2 and 3 need to be subjected to two springback simulations.”); and
simulating an assembly process comprising having as input the first free part simulated geometry and the second free part simulated geometry and generating an assembled part simulation model (50) corresponding to an optimised adapted reference geometry (71) (Fig. 5(b)) (Pg. 1457: “The simulation procedure then proceeds with the assembly phase.”) (Pg. 1461: “The resulting state can also be used in further assembling processes and/or in any simulation of the assembly in function.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Govik on performing a forming process on two or more parts and simulating an assembly process with the teachings from Birkert on the forming process. The motivation to combine would have been that performing a forming process and assembly process allows simulating an entire process chain which allows better analyzing the evolution of deformation at each step of the process (Govik, Pg. 1454: “Much information about the manufacturing process may be gained from FE simulations of the entire manufacturing process chain, i.e., from forming of the individual sub-components to the assembling process. … By sequentially simulate each step of the manufacturing process, the methodology can be applied to describe the evolution of deformations and residual stresses throughout the manufacturing process chain. … The geometry of the assembled part obtained from the FE simulations is compared with the geometry of the part obtained from physical tests.”).
Birkert/Govik does not explicitly teach manufacturing the tool with a shape defined by the optimised adapted reference geometry (71).
However, Sasahara teaches manufacturing a tool that would produce a shape determined from simulation (Pg. 2, Para 5: “Then, the above correction is performed until the dimensional accuracy is good, and the mold is actually manufactured with the mold shape finally improved.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Sasahara on manufacturing the tool according to the simulation result with the teachings from Birkert/Govik on the manufacturing the parts based on the simulation result. The motivation to combine would have been that Birkert/Govik teaches designing a tool, and manufacturing such a tool according to the design would allow producing parts with accurate shapes which can be used for various applications (Pg. 2, Para. 3: “Conventionally, development of a lightweight and highly rigid vehicle body or the like has been desired. In such a case, it is necessary to expand application of steel plates with higher tension. Furthermore, the need for application of aluminum plates is also increasing. However, the problem at this time is a poor dimensional accuracy centered on the spring back after molding of the plastic processed product.”) (Pg. 2, Para. 11: “In this way, it is possible to design a mold that can mold the product shape of a plastic processed product that is affected by springback characteristics, etc., closer to the target shape with higher accuracy.”).
Therefore, the combination of Birkert/Govik and Sasahara teaches
manufacturing the tool with a shape defined by the optimised adapted reference geometry (71) (Govik, Fig. 5(b)) (Govik, Pg. 1457: “The simulation procedure then proceeds with the assembly phase.”) (Govik, Pg. 1461: “The resulting state can also be used in further assembling processes and/or in any simulation of the assembly in function.”) (Sasahara, Pg. 2, Para 5: “Then, the above correction is performed until the dimensional accuracy is good, and the mold is actually manufactured with the mold shape finally improved.”).
Regarding claim 2, Birkert/Govik/Sasahara teaches
wherein, in the step of determining associated strain values, this is done under the assumption that in a reference surface that is parallel to, or offset to the outer surfaces of the formed part (3), in particular a middle surface of the formed part (3), strain is zero or at a constant value (Birkert, Fig. 12B; [0042]: “The non-linear structural-mechanical finite-element simulation comprises inter alia the step of defining at least three fixing points of the first or second configuration. A “fixing point” remains unchanged with respect to its position during the non-linear structural-mechanical finite-element simulation. Fixing points are therefore spatially invariant under the non-linear structural-mechanical finite-element simulation. The first or second configuration is then fixed at the fixing points.”).
Regarding claim 4, Birkert/Govik/Sasahara teaches
wherein the scaling parameter, in the step of determining associated stress values, controls an extent to which, in the material points of the FEM mesh the associated strain is assigned to an elastic deformation of the material, with a remaining portion being assigned to plastic deformation, and thereby influences the magnitude of the associated stress values (Birkert, [0050]: “The deformation forces may be point forces, line forces and/or area forces. … The deformation forces are varied with regard to strength, direction, location of the introduction of the force and/or possible further parameters, until the target configuration is achieved under elastic deformation of the workpiece.”) (Birkert, [0067]: “This simulation is based on an elastic-plastic material model of the workpiece that incorporat