DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 10 have been presented for examination.
This office action is in response to submission of the application on 03/21/2022.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 (and similarly 4 – 5 and 8) is objected to because of the following informalities: it recites “and/or” which is ambiguous regarding requiring both “and” in addition to “or”. The limitation is interpreted for examination purposes as only requiring “or. 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.
Claim 7 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.
With regard to claim 7, it recites “wherein if there is an interference, using the original design model as the target design model after a material of the second portion on the original design model has been adjusted”. However, the parent claim 4 recites “if the probability of occurrence of the defect in the third portion is less than the first preset value, using the adjusted model as the target design model”. Therefore, it is ambiguous which model to use under certain conditions (i.e., when both probability of occurrence of the defect is less than the first present value AND when there is an interference). Claim 7, where the unclarity is introduced, is interpreted for examination purposes as adjusting a material of the second portion under some condition.
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 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a process) method for improving the design of a vehicle-body stamped part, wherein the method comprises: screening a first portion with a defect rate and/or a defect type not meeting a preset requirement from the thinned portions; and adjusting a shape, a size, and/or a material of a second portion that is the same as the first portion on an original design model of the stamped part to obtain a target design model. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “screening” and “adjusting” amounts to modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality requiring no more than judgement and evaluations. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: obtaining thinned portions with thinning rates exceeding a standard rate on a stamped part that has been formed. The “obtaining” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality, and since the “screening” step relies on the received elements in a generic manner (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The recited “obtaining” covers well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since it is generic and covers receiving and outputting data by any electronics means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2 and 4 - 9 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s):
Claim 2 wherein the step of "obtaining thinned portions with thinning rates exceeding a standard rate on a stamped part that has been formed" comprises:
constructing a three-dimensional model based on the point cloud data; and comparing the three-dimensional model with the original design model of the stamped part to obtain the thinned portions with thinning rates exceeding the standard rate on the stamped part.
Claim 4 wherein the step of "adjusting a shape, a size, and/or a material of a second portion that is the same as the first portion on an original design model of the stamped part to obtain a target design model" comprises: adjusting the shape and the size of the second portion on the original design model to obtain an adjusted model;
if the probability of occurrence of the defect in the third portion is less than the first preset value, using the adjusted model as the target design model.
Claim 5 wherein the step of "adjusting a shape, a size, and/or a material of a second portion that is the same as the first portion on an original design model of the stamped part to obtain a target design model" further comprises: if the probability of occurrence of the defect in the third portion is not less than the first preset value, using the original design model as the target design model after a material of the second portion on the original design model has been adjusted to a material with a higher forming performance index.
Claim 6 wherein the step of "adjusting the shape and the size of the second portion on the original design model to obtain an adjusted model" comprises:
after the shape and the size of the second portion on the original design model are adjusted, determining whether there is an interference between the adjusted model and a part that fits into the adjusted model; and
if there is no interference, using, as the adjusted model, a model obtained after the shape and the size of the second portion on the original design model have been adjusted.
Claim 7 wherein if there is an interference, using the original design model as the target design model after a material of the second portion on the original design model has been adjusted to a material with a higher forming performance index.
Claim 8 wherein the step of "adjusting a shape and a size of the second portion" comprises: adjusting a draft angle and/or a fillet size of the second portion.
Claim 9 wherein the defect rate comprises a crack scrap rate.
At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “constructing” and “adjusting” and “using” and “has been adjusted” and “have been adjusted” amounts to modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality requiring no more than judgement and evaluations based on received data. Although the model is a “three-dimensional model”, the number of dimensions in a model limits how many degree of freedom said model contains, and does not require any computer implementation (i.e., CAD model). The “comparing” and “determining” cover analytical actions in combination with the three-dimensional model requiring no more than judgements and evaluations. The “defect rate comprises” further limits the parent claim “screening” without precluding performance in the mind. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims:
Claim 2 wherein the step of "obtaining thinned portions with thinning rates exceeding a standard rate on a stamped part that has been formed" comprises: scanning the stamped part to obtain point cloud data;
Claim 4 wherein the step of "adjusting a shape, a size, and/or a material of a second portion that is the same as the first portion on an original design model of the stamped part to obtain a target design model" comprises: performing a simulation analysis on the adjusted model to determine whether a probability of occurrence of a defect in a third portion that is the same as the second portion on the adjusted model is less than a first preset value; and
The “scanning” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality, and since the “constructing” relies on the data in a generic manner (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). The “performing a simulation analysis” covers the use of generic simulators to perform an “analysis” recited at a high-level of generality. Looking to the disclosure, there is no further detail regarding the simulation or the analysis. Therefore, is amount to reciting the words “apply it”. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The “scanning” covers well-understood, routine and conventional activity since it covers any known method of scanning (see the instant application Paragraph 56 “Those skilled in the art may alternatively use a three-dimensional laser scanner, a structured light source converter, an X-ray computed tomography device, or another suitable scanning device to scan the stamped part to obtain point cloud data”). The “performing a simulation analysis” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it covers the use of commercially available simulators to generically perform an analysis. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3 and 10 recite(s)at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s). Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed further claims:
Claim 3 wherein the step of "scanning the stamped part to obtain point cloud data" comprises: scanning the stamped part placed on a gauge platform to obtain the point cloud data.
Claim 10 wherein the step of "scanning the stamped part to obtain point cloud data" comprises: scanning the stamped part by using a stereo camera system to obtain the point cloud data.
The “scanning the stamped part placed on a gauge platform” amounts to insignificant data gathering since the “gauge platform” merely supports the part during scanning for a more accurate scan, and does not further detail how the scanning process itself is performed (see the instant application Paragraph 19 “The stamped part is placed on the gauge platform for scanning to obtain the point cloud data, so as to avoid deformation of different portions of the stamped part due to gravity and irregular support forces, thereby avoiding a deviation between the three-dimensional model constructed based on the acquired point cloud data and an actual shape and size obtained after stamping construction”). The “scanning the stamped part by using a stereo camera system” merely limits the imaging device used to perform the scanning, and does not further detail how the scanning process itself is performed. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claims do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The “scanning the stamped part placed on a gauge platform” and “scanning the stamped part by using a stereo camera system” cover well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since it does not detail how the scanning process itself is performed. Specifically, the “scanning the stamped part by using a stereo camera system” requires no more than commercially available scanning systems (see the instant application Paragraph 40 “an ATOS stereo camera system is used to scan the vehicle body panel placed on the gauge platform to obtain the point cloud data.”). For at least these reasons, the claims are not patent 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheng et al. (US 2022/0100923) (henceforth “Sheng (923)”) in view of Ma et al. “Optimization of Process Parameters of Stamping Forming of the Automotive Lower Floor Board” (henceforth “Ma”). Sheng (923) and Ma are analogous art because they solve the same problem of improving design of a stamped part, and because they are from the same field of endeavor of part stamping.
With regard to claim 1, Sheng (923) in view of Ma teaches a method for improving the design of a vehicle-body stamped part, wherein the method comprises:
obtaining thinned portions with yield strength exceeding a standard rate on a stamped part that has been formed; screening a first portion with a defect rate and/or a defect type not meeting a preset requirement from the thinned portions; and (Paragraph 3 a stamped part is manually evaluated for stretching failure (screening a first portion with a defect not meeting a preset requirement) in different portions (obtaining thinned portions) “Stretching failure can be in the form of localized necking and associated fracture in multiple portions of the workpiece, which are unacceptable for cosmetic and performance requirements. … The localized necking and associated fracture can form in a plane stress area of the workpiece where the normal contact pressure is below a predetermined yield strength during forming, such as below 5% yield strength. In industrial practices, technicians manually execute multiple methods with associated criteria independent from one another for identifying stretching failure in the different portions of the workpiece.”)
adjusting a shape, a size, and/or a material of a second portion that is the same as the first portion on an original design model of the stamped part to obtain a target design model. (Paragraph 30 a design of a part is desirably altered with regard to specific areas “A technician can use the detected stretching failure risk for the practical application of altering the design of the die, part, stamping process plan”)
Sheng (923) does not appear to explicitly disclose: obtaining thinned portions with thinning rates exceeding a standard rate on a stamped part that has been formed.
However, Ma teaches:
obtaining thinned portions with thinning rates exceeding a standard rate on a stamped part; (Page 4, Left “In general, the requirement of maximum thinning rate is not more than 30%,”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method examining a stamped part for stretching failures based on localized necking disclosed by Sheng (923) with the method of examining a stamping process for thinning rates exceeded a standard rate disclosed by Ma. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to control thinning rates (Ma Abstract “On this basis, the optimization of the four parameters was carried out, and the high quality product was obtained and the maximum thinning rate and maximum thickening rate were effectively controlled”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheng (923) in view of Ma, and further in view of Liasi et al. (US 2002/0090130) (henceforth “Liasi (130)”). Sheng (923) and Ma and Liasi (130) are analogous art because they solve the same problem of improving design of a stamped part, and because they are from the same field of endeavor of part stamping.
With regard to claim 2, Sheng (923) in view of Ma teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1, and further teaches wherein the step of "obtaining thinned portions with thinning rates exceeding a standard rate on a stamped part that has been formed" comprises:
comparing a three-dimensional model with the original design model of the stamped part to obtain the thinned portions with thinning rates exceeding the standard rate on the stamped part. (Ma Page 3, Left thinning rate is calculated by comparing an original thickness to a new thickness, where comparing the thickness of the scanned model with the original design model has predictable results)
Sheng (923) in view of Ma does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the step of "obtaining thinned portions with thinning rates exceeding a standard rate on a stamped part that has been formed" comprises: scanning the stamped part to obtain point cloud data; constructing a three-dimensional model based on the point cloud data.
However, Liasi (130) teaches:
scanning the stamped part to obtain point cloud data; (Paragraph 30 “Either before or after the scanning of surface 18, a part that has been stamped by the tool is also scanned to develop spatial data defining the shape of either all or a portion of its surface formed by the tool. The patent application referenced above describes a procedure for fixturing and scanning a stamped part.”)
constructing a three-dimensional model based on the point cloud data; and (Figure 3 CAD Model from point cloud after scan
PNG
media_image1.png
217
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method examining a stamped part for thinned portions disclosed by Sheng (923) in view of Ma with the method of scanning a stamped part for modeling disclosed by Liasi (130). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve a stamping process (Liasi (130) Paragraph 12 “Apparatus and methods that improve efficiency of making and maintaining a forming tool, such as a stamping tool, will have obvious benefit to industry”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheng (923) in view of Ma, and further in view Liasi (130), and further in view of Virtanen et al. “Rapid Prototyping — A Tool for Presenting 3-Dimensional Digital Models Produced by Terrestrial Laser Scanning” (henceforth “Virtanen”). Sheng (923) and Ma and Liasi (130) and Virtanen are analogous art because they solve the same problem of improving design of a stamped part, and because they are from the same field of endeavor of part stamping.
With regard to claim 3, Sheng (923) in view of Ma, and further in view of Liasi (130) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 2, and does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the step of "scanning the stamped part to obtain point cloud data" comprises: scanning the stamped part placed on a gauge platform to obtain the point cloud data.
However, Virtanen teaches:
scanning the stamped part placed on a gauge platform to obtain the point cloud data. (Page 879, Middle “To facilitate scanning, a rotating stage platform can be used to automatically rotate the object being scanned”, and Page 872, Top “In engineering, RP techniques have been used, e.g., in manufacturing tooling for sheet metal forming”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method scanning a stamped part with thinned portions disclosed by Sheng (923) in view of Ma, and further in view of Liasi (130) with the method of scanning a stamped part using rotating stage platform disclosed by Virtanen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate the scanning for metal forming (Virtanen Page 879, Middle, and Page 872, Top).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheng (923) in view of Ma, and further in view of Kubli et al. (US 2021/0406423) (henceforth “Kubli (423)”). Sheng (923) and Ma and Kubli (423) are analogous art because they solve the same problem of improving design of a stamped part, and because they are from the same field of endeavor of part stamping.
With regard to claim 4, Sheng (923) in view of Ma teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1, and further teaches wherein the step of "adjusting a shape, a size, and/or a material of a second portion that is the same as the first portion on an original design model of the stamped part to obtain a target design model" comprises:
adjusting the shape and the size of the second portion on the original design model to obtain an adjusted model; (Paragraph 30 a design of a part is desirably altered with regard to specific areas “A technician can use the detected stretching failure risk for the practical application of altering the design of the die, part, stamping process plan”)
Sheng (923) in view of Ma does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the step of "adjusting a shape, a size, and/or a material of a second portion that is the same as the first portion on an original design model of the stamped part to obtain a target design model" comprises: performing a simulation analysis on the adjusted model to determine whether a probability of occurrence of a defect in a third portion that is the same as the second portion on the adjusted model is less than a first preset value; and if the probability of occurrence of the defect in the third portion is less than the first preset value, using the adjusted model as the target design model.
However, Kubli (423) teaches:
performing a simulation analysis on an adjusted model to determine whether a probability of occurrence of a defect in a third portion that is the same as a second portion on the adjusted model is less than a first preset value; and if the probability of occurrence of the defect in the third portion is less than the first preset value, using the adjusted model as the target design model. (Paragraph 78 designs are evaluated based on a significance of the probability (probability of occurrence less than a present value) that a defect will occur, where one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use a design that does not have critical regions since it is a better design (if probability less than the preset value) “Critical regions 22 can be found as being regions in which there is a significant probability that a defect with a certain severity will occur. This can be done, among others, by analysing the results of the simulation with regard to thinning effects and thickening effects”, and Paragraph 106 - 113 evaluation can be performed by simulation (performing simulation analysis) over an altered design (third portion same a second portion on the adjusted model) “For adapting the design of the part 2 and/or the tool 1 and/or the process, typically in an optimisation procedure, for example one or more of the following can be realized … Iterative testing of different modifications by simulation can be used to find such an optimum.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method examining a stamped part for thinned portions disclosed by Sheng (923) in view of Ma with the iterative part optimization by simulation to avoid critical regions disclosed by Kubli (423). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize a part design (Kubli (423) Paragraph 113).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheng (923) in view of Ma, and further in view of Kubli (423), and further in view of Tobita et al. (US 2020/0346269) (henceforth “Tobita (269)”). Sheng (923) and Ma and Kubli (423) and Tobita (269) are analogous art are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of part stamping.
With regard to claim 5, Sheng (923) in view of Ma, and further in view of Kubli (423) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 4, and does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the step of "adjusting a shape, a size, and/or a material of a second portion that is the same as the first portion on an original design model of the stamped part to obtain a target design model" further comprises: if the probability of occurrence of the defect in the third portion is not less than the first preset value, using the original design model as the target design model after a material of the second portion on the original design model has been adjusted to a material with a higher forming performance index.
However, Tobita (269) teaches:
if a probability of occurrence of a defect in a third portion is not less than a first preset value, using an original design model as a target design model after a material of a second portion on the original design model has been adjusted to a material with a higher forming performance index. (Abstract regions where crack has high probability of occurring (if probability of occurrence not less than preset value) are treated which changes the material properties (after a material has been adjusted) “When a region where a stretch flange crack is estimated to be likely to occur when the single metal sheet is press formed by the press processing is set as a stretch flange crack region, the press processing is applied after heating and cooling the end surface of the metal sheet positioned in the stretch flange crack region and at least the end surface in the end surface and the vicinity thereof in the single metal sheet after the shearing processing.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method examining a stamped part for thinned portions disclosed by Sheng (923) in view of Ma, and further in view of Kubli (423) with the localized press processing disclosed by Tobita (269). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize a stamped part (Tobita (269) Abstract).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheng (923) in view of Ma, and further in view of Kubli (423), and further in view of Wilcox et al. (US 2018/0285487) (henceforth “Wilcox (487)”). Sheng (923) and Ma and Kubli (423) and Wilcox (487) are analogous art because they solve the same problem of improving design of a stamped part, and because they are from the same field of endeavor of part stamping.
With regard to claim 6, Sheng (923) in view of Ma, and further in view of Kubli (423) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 4, and does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the step of "adjusting the shape and the size of the second portion on the original design model to obtain an adjusted model" comprises: after the shape and the size of the second portion on the original design model are adjusted, determining whether there is an interference between the adjusted model and a part that fits into the adjusted model; and if there is no interference, using, as the adjusted model, a model obtained after the shape and the size of the second portion on the original design model have been adjusted.
However, Wilcox (487) teaches:
after a shape and a size of a second portion on an original design model are adjusted, determining whether there is an interference between the adjusted model and a part that fits into the adjusted model; and if there is no interference, using, as the adjusted model, a model obtained after the shape and the size of the second portion on the original design model have been adjusted. (Paragraph 3 - 4 a change in the stamped part shape due to defect can affect the fit of the parts (determining whether there is an interference), where a proper fit of parts would not require any further adjustment to an existing modeling having results that are wholly predictable (if there is no interference, using a model obtain after the shape and size have been adjusted) “This deformation includes effects like stretching, wrinkling and spring-back … Failure to adequately adjust for spring-back will cause problems during assembly and adversely affect the fit of parts.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method examining a stamped part for thinned portions disclosed by Sheng (923) in view of Ma, and further in view of Kubli (423) with the part fit effects after deformation effects disclosed by Wilcox. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to ensure the fit of parts upon part design modifications (Wilcox (487) Paragraph 4).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheng (923) in view of Ma, and further in view of Kubil (423), and further in view of Wilcox (487), and further in view of Tobita (269). Sheng (923) and Ma and Kubli (423) and Wilcox (487) and Tobita (269) are analogous art are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of part stamping.
With regard to claim 7, Sheng (923) in view of Ma, and further in view of Kubli (423), and further in view of Wilcox (487) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 6, and does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein if there is an interference, using the original design model as the target design model after a material of the second portion on the original design model has been adjusted to a material with a higher forming performance index. (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 regarding conditionally using the original design model)
However, Tobita (269) teaches:
conditionally using an original design model as a target design model after a material of a second portion on the original design model has been adjusted to a material with a higher forming performance index. (Abstract regions where crack has high probability of occurring (if probability of occurrence not less than preset value) are treated which changes the material properties (after a material has been adjusted) “When a region where a stretch flange crack is estimated to be likely to occur when the single metal sheet is press formed by the press processing is set as a stretch flange crack region, the press processing is applied after heating and cooling the end surface of the metal sheet positioned in the stretch flange crack region and at least the end surface in the end surface and the vicinity thereof in the single metal sheet after the shearing processing.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method examining a stamped part for thinned portions disclosed by Sheng (923) in view of Ma, and further in view of Kubli (423), and further in view of Wilcox (487) with the localized press processing disclosed by Tobita (269). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize a stamped part (Tobita (269) Abstract).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheng (923) in view of Ma, and further in view of Yan et al. “FEM Analysis Of Stamping Process For Vehicle Cowl Inner Panel” (henceforth “Yan”). Sheng (923) and Ma and Yan are analogous art because they solve the same problem of improving design of a stamped part, and because they are from the same field of endeavor of part stamping.
With regard to claim 8, Sheng (923) in view of Ma teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1, and does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the step of "adjusting a shape and a size of the second portion" comprises: adjusting a draft angle and/or a fillet size of the second portion.
However, Yan teaches:
adjusting a draft angle and/or a fillet size of a second portion. (Page 353, Bottom “It is shown in Figure 4a that both top edges of the part, as shown in B, C, D of Figure 4a, appear obviously thinning when fillets radii are small, and the maximum thinning rate is over 90%. The wrinkling appears on the flange of the part, under the condition of certain binder force, the smaller fillets radii of addendum surface, the greater the resistance forces when the metal flows into the cavity, so the greater wrinklings generate on the par”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method examining a stamped part for thinned portions disclosed by Sheng (923) in view of Ma with the optimizing fillet radii disclosed by Yan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to avoid wrinkling (Yan Page 353, Bottom).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheng (923) in view of Ma, and further in view of Nurnberg et al. “Improving the sheared edge in the blanking of commercial AZ31 sheet through texture modification” (henceforth “Nurnberg”). Sheng (923) and Ma and Nurnberg are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of part stamping.
With regard to claim 9, Sheng (923) in view of Ma teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1, and does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the defect rate comprises a crack scrap rate.
However, Nurnberg teaches:
wherein a defect rate comprises a crack scrap rate. (Abstract cracks increase the scrap rate “These micro cracks lead to the formation of loose particles during the shearing operation, which interfere with further processing of the part and incur additional costs by increasing the scrap rate.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method examining a stamped part for thinned portions disclosed by Sheng (923) in view of Ma with the cracks increasing the scrap rate disclosed by Nurnberg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize a stamping process (Nurnberg Page 2024, Left “The blanking experiments were conducted at room temperature in a stamping press”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheng (923) in view of Ma, and further in view of Liasi (130), and further in view of Hinz et al. “Metal Forming Tool Monitoring Based on a 3DMeasuring Endoscope Using CAD Assisted Registration” (henceforth “Hinz”). Sheng (923) and Ma and Liasi (130) and Hinz are analogous art because they solve the same problem of improving design of a stamped part, and because they are from the same field of endeavor of part stamping.
With regard to claim 10, Sheng (923) in view of Ma, and further in view of Liasi teaches all the elements of the parent claim 2, and does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the step of "scanning the stamped part to obtain point cloud data" comprises: scanning the stamped part by using a stereo camera system to obtain the point cloud data.
However, Hinz teaches:
scanning the stamped part by using a stereo camera system to obtain the point cloud data. (Page 10, Top “The presented system is based on the fringe projection approach (active stereo vision). The correspondence between camera and projector is determined by sinusoidal patterns being shifted through the scene”, and Abstract “To obtain data of proper quality, several hundred measurements are performed which then have to be registered and finally merged into one single point cloud”, and Page 4, Top “The experimental setup is designed to analyze the condition of sheet metal forming tools after certain cycles”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method scanning a stamped part with thinned portions disclosed by Sheng (923) in view of Ma, and further in view of Liasi (130) with the stereo camera scanning disclosed by Hinz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to generate a point cloud of a metal formed part (Hinz Page 4, Top).
Examiner General Comments
With regard to the prior art rejection(s), any cited portion of the relied upon reference(s), either by pointing to specific sections or as quotations, is intended to be interpreted in the context of the reference(s) as a whole as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention since the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure r elating to the cited portions. Further, the claims and only the claims form the metes and bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner’s notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent and spirit of compact prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-8988. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am to 6pm.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER/ExaminerArt Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187