DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/22/2026 has been entered.
Claim 1-22 have been presented for examination based on the application filed on 4/22/2026.
Claims 1, 13, 20 and 22 are amended.
Rejection for claims 4 & 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement is WITHDRAWN in view applicant’s position that this feature is well known in the art.
Claims 1-22 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20010028122 A1 by Narushima, Takeshi et al.
Claim 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5822206 A by Sebastian; Donald et al.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20010028122 A1 by Narushima, Takeshi et al., in view of US 6233500 B1 by Malas; James C. et al.
Claim(s) 4 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20010028122 A1 by Narushima, Takeshi et al., in view of NPL by C.Y Wu et al (“Optimal Shape Design of an Extrusion Die Using Polynomial Networks and Genetic Algorithms”; Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2002) 19:79–87).
Claim(s) 13-16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5822206 A by Sebastian; Donald et al., in view of US 20220258222 A1 by Tozier; Mike et al.
Claim(s) 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US US 5822206 A by Sebastian; Donald et al., in view of US 20220258222 A1 by Tozier; Mike et al., further in view of US 20190056715 A1 SUBRAMANIYAN; Arun Karthi et al.
This action is made Non-Final.
Applicant’s are encouraged to request an interview before filing a response to address the rejection.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Response to Arguments
Argument presented against rejections made under 35 USC 112(a), in remarks Pgs. 10-12, are persuasive based on applicant admitting the what is well known in the art.
(Argument 1) Applicant has argued in Remarks Pg.12-16:
PNG
media_image1.png
362
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Response 1) The interpretation what is considered as within the simulation itself does not commensurate with the disclosure in the current specification. Specifically See specification Fig. 5 [0137]-[0139]. The Simulation Unit 178 comprises a first box 182 indicating the varying of values of the set of shaping parameters, a second box 184 indicating the comparing of the simulated shaping properties for these values with the set of shaping target criteria, a third box 186 indicating an iterative performance of the simulation by feeding the varied values of the set of shaping parameters back to the first box 182 such as to further vary the values.
PNG
media_image2.png
448
578
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[0319] … In FIG. 5, the simulating a shaping process using the shaping tool 126 may be illustrated by a first box 182 indicating the varying of values of the set of shaping parameters, by a second box 184 indicating the comparing of the simulated shaping properties for these values with the set of shaping target criteria, and by a third box 168 indicating an iterative performance of the simulation by feeding the varied values of the set of shaping parameters back to the first box 182 such as to further vary the values.
This maps identically to Narushima Figs.2, 6 and 7, where setting the initial values for the core and die is shown in Fig.2 element D4, simulation is shown in Fig.1 element S4-S5 and Fig.7 elements 1-3, where adjustment/varying to die/core is performed in Fig.7 element 4 (showing varying is part of the simulation) and Fig.6. The simulation and varying are part of the simulation as disclosed in [0038]-[0039]:
PNG
media_image3.png
356
550
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
1244
1874
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As per applicant’s argument applicant the use of during is implying some kind of temporal intervention during the simulated molding process. Specifically where the product shaping is adjusted by changing the mold & die parameters, after first time period but before the full molded product is formed. As seen above there is no temporal nature of intermediate invention during simulation is claimed/supported in specification as cited. Therefore applicant’s argument regarding during simulation are not persuasive. Also see rejection under 35 USC 112(b) below.
(Argument 2) Applicant has argued in Remarks Pg.16-17:
PNG
media_image5.png
462
610
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Response 2) There appears to be some indefiniteness what applicant is considering the shaping parameters of the starting geometry. Unlike claim 20, the shaping parameters here are parameters of the detailed part design itself and not mapped to the shaping tool design (die or core or mold). In either case Sebastian teaches both , i.e. parameters for the part (See Sebastian Fig.2A element 202/206) and the shaping tool (See Sebastian Fig.2B element 208/204) and teaches updating the parameters for part as mapped in the rejection. Applicant’s are requested to clarify their argument what they consider shaping parameters of the starting geometry [of what?, tool or part]? Mere allegation that Sebastian does not teach adapting shaping parameters is not evidenced from the mapping made below in the rejection. Sebastian teaches adjusting the part design as (Sebastian: Col.20 46—Col.21 Lines 15 "... Iterative: Find the lowest cost combination of wall thickness and material types with a weight less than 1 lb and deflection less than one hundredth of an inch...."; Col.1 Lines 40-44 "... The next stage, after a prototype of the part has been made, is revising the design. The above steps of part, tool and process design are repeated until a satisfactory part is produced, both as to design and cost of production...." simulation performed by Fig.3 elements 28/32 CAD/FEM; Again the varying of parameter is varying parameter of the shaped body/molded product; not the body of the tool/mold).
Also for tool, see Fig.7 elements 94/96a for iteratively (bidirectional arrow) tool design in view of product 94a:
PNG
media_image6.png
638
926
media_image6.png
Greyscale
No new arguments are made for dependent claims and examiner respectfully finds applicants arguments unpersuasive.
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 1-22 are newly 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.
Specifically claim 1 now recites:
(Claim 1) iv) … wherein the set of shaping parameters of the starting geometry is adapted or changed according to the shaping target criteria when simulating the shaping process using the shaping tool in step iv);
Applicant has argued that above limitation is to be interpreted as “wherein the set of shaping parameters of the starting geometry is adapted or changed according to the shaping target criteria during simulating the shaping process using the shaping tool in step iv);
The specification does not appear to have the same interpretation as shown in the Fig. 5 & [0317]-[0319].
PNG
media_image2.png
448
578
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
542
546
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It is unclear when the comparing and varying happens. It appears the simulated product has to be molded before the comparing can happen. As per applicant’s argument applicant the use of during is implying some kind of temporal intervention during the simulated molding process. Specifically where the product shaping is adjusted by changing the mold & die parameters, after first time period but before the full molded product is formed. This distinction in argument and claimed limitation makes the claim 1 and claims 13, 20 and 22 indefinite likewise.
There is nothing in the specification as cited, that supports this temporal (during) limitation. If this interpretation (or amendment in future) of the claim is used, without further evidence in specification, a future rejection under 35 USC 112(a) written description may be made.
Dependent claims 2-12, 14-19 and 21 are rejected based on the their dependency on rejected claims 1, 13, 20 and 22.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20010028122 A1 by Narushima, Takeshi et al.
Regarding Claim 1 (Updated 6/12/2026)
Narushima teaches (Claim 1) A computer-implemented method for designing at least one shaping tool (Narushima: [0051] & Fig. 7) , wherein the shaping tool is one or more of a tableting tool and an extrusion die (Narushima: Fig. 7) , the method comprising:
i) retrieving, by using at least one interface, at least one set of shaping target criteria for the shaping tool (Narushima: [0033]-[0035]) ;
ii) defining, by using at least one geometry defining unit comprising a processor (Narushima: [0040][0051], computer comprises a processor), at least one starting geometry for the shaping tool (Narushima: [0038]"... [0038] As shown in FIG. 6, the extruder die and core that were previously selected are used as the initial shape (S11) and the thickness distribution of the molded product is obtained by extrusion simulation and clamping-blowing simulation (S12)...") wherein the starting geometry is a predefined starting geometry (Narushima : [0038] showing starting geometry & [0031] starting geometry for die (shaping tool) is data in FEM format) stored in a data storage of a computer (Narushima: [0031] die data is presented as FEM and aspects of simulation are stored [0040]-[0043]) ;
iii) generating, by using at least one shaping parameter generating unit comprising a processor (Narushima: [0040][0051]) , a set of shaping parameters comprising at least one shape geometry parameter of the starting geometry (Narushima: [0038] shape parameter a & b as shown in Fig.3 ) , wherein the set of shaping parameters represent at least one property and/or behavior of the shaping tool when the shaping tool is used for shaping at least one object (Narushima: Figs. 9 showing the core and die leading to shaping of the object , Also see Figs. 4A-4C) ;
iv) simulating, by using at least one simulation unit comprising a processor (Narushima: [0040][0051], computer comprises a processor) , a shaping process using the shaping tool by varying values of the set of shaping parameters and by comparing simulated shaping properties for these values with the set of shaping target criteria (Narushima: Fig.2, Fig.6 and Fig. 7 [0038]-[0039]) , thereby generating at least one shaping geometry with an adapted set of shaping parameters for which the shaping target criteria are fulfilled at least within predetermined tolerances (Narushima: [0009] "... comparing this difference with a threshold; and changing the aforementioned initial shape on the basis of this difference if the difference exceeds the threshold. ..." - tolerance as threshold which is used in background also in Fig.6 and 7) , wherein the adapted set of shaping parameters refers to an adapted set of values of shaping parameters (Narushima: [0038] & Fig.6 as changing geometric parameter a/b ratios) wherein when simulating the shaping process using the shaping tool, the values of the set of shaping parameters of the starting geometry are varied, wherein the varying of the values of the set of shaping parameters is performed iteratively until the values of the set of shaping parameters are such that the shaping process using the shaping tool fulfills the set of shaping target criteria at least within predetermined tolerances (Narushima: [0038] & Fig.6 as changing geometric parameter a/b ratios, the predetermined criteria is deformation of the molded product is close to a linear deformation), and wherein the set of shaping parameters of the starting geometry (Narushima: first, the starting geometry of the die and core are specified [0014]"... the first step can include a step for obtaining the parison shape and thickness distribution by assigning values to the shape of the gap between the extruder die and core [initial core and die starting geometry] and to the physical properties of the resin...") is adapted or changed (Narushima : [0014] "...the fourth step can include a step for evaluating, in terms of molded product strength and thermal deformation stability, the thickness distribution of the resin after it has been blown against the walls of the mold cavity, and for obtaining, on the basis of this evaluation, the shape of the extruder die and core that will give the optimum thickness distribution [updating the core and die that gives optimum thickness distribution] ...."; [0037]-[0038] Fig.7) according to the shaping target criteria when simulating the shaping process using the shaping tool in step iv) (Narushima: [0014] "... the second step can include a step for predicting deformation of the parison due to its being clamped and blown, and for obtaining the thickness distribution of the resin after it has been blown against the walls of the mold cavity;. ..." [this is actual simulation] --- it can be seen that parameters for core and die are adjusted for this iterative simulation [0037]-[0038] & Fig.7) and
v) determining, by using at least one shaping tool geometry defining unit comprising a processor (Narushima: [0040][0051], computer comprises a processor), at least one geometry of the at least one shaping tool from the adapted set of shaping parameters, wherein the geometry of the shaping tool is a three-dimensional form or shape of the shaping tool (Narushima: Fig.1 element S6, adaptation of a/b in Fig.6 and Fig.7, Fig.3 (x-y as a-b) & 9 (x-y as r and vertical as z) showing the 2 view of the three-dimensional form of the realized shaping tool) .
Regarding Claim 2
Narushima teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the shaping target criteria contain at least one constraint selected from the group consisting of: a surface property constraint; a geometry constraint; a pressure constraint; a shear force constraint; a compaction force constraint; an ejection force constraint; a die-filling constraint; a productivity constraint; an economic constraint; a force distribution constraint; a velocity distribution constraint; a mechanical stability constraint; a strength constraint, a weight constraint; an attrition performance constraint; a production machine constraint; and a production constraint (Narushima: [0009] as thresholds; [0014] optimality; [0034]-[0035] & Table 1, geometry parameter, [0036] desired thickness distribution as discussed, with weights – constraints as desired thickness [0036] "... [0036] The shape of the extruder die and core are selected by choosing, from the simulation results shown in FIGS. 4A to 4C, the set of results that approximates to the desired thickness distribution....") .
Regarding Claim 3
Narushima teaches the method according to preceding claim 1, wherein at least one of the shaping target criteria of the set of shaping target criteria comprises at least one condition to be fulfilled by the shaping tool (Narushima: [0009] as thresholds; [0036] "... [0036] The shape of the extruder die and core are selected by choosing, from the simulation results shown in FIGS. 4A to 4C, the set of results that approximates to the desired thickness distribution...."); Fig.6 & [0038] condition could be desired thickness which is met by a/b ratio as in Fig.6).
Regarding Claim 5
Narushima teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:vi) prototyping the at least one shaping tool from the at least one geometry of the shaping tool determined in step v) (Narushima: [0010] showing prototyping actual mold and comparing it with simulation in Fig.4A-C as measured and simulated data) ; and vii) validating the prototyped shaping tool by comparing at least one property of the prototyped shaping tool with at least one property of a simulated shaping tool (Narushima: Fig.4A-4C with different a (core)/b(die) setting as detailed in Table 1-2, being validated in Table 1 (simulated – Table 2) with measured (prototyped) in Fig.4A-4C [0034]-[0035]; [0009] threshold based comparison) .
Regarding Claim 6 (Updated 6/12/2026)
Narushima teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising a computer-implemented designing of at least one shaped body
a) retrieving, by using at least one interfac (Narushima: [0013] "...[0013] The first step can include a step for obtaining the parison shape and parison thickness distribution [this is the initial target criteria, based on which the initial die and core ] …” [0042] as storage and loss modulli are retrieved from measurements; [0049] "...The intra-die strain .epsilon..sub.d mentioned above is determined so that the parison length obtained from equation (5) matches the target length....");
b) defining, by using at least one geometry defining unit comprising a processor (Narushima: [0040][0051], computer comprises a processor), at least one seed geometry for the shaped body (Narushima: [0042]-[0044] – relaxation modulus Gj is calculated from it to generate the initial parison formation (seed geometry) as in [0044]);
c) generating, by using at least one parameter generating unit comprising a processor (Narushima: [0040][0051], computer comprises a processor), a set of parameters comprising at least one geometry parameter of the seed geometry [0042]-[0044] – relaxation modulus Gj is calculated);
d) simulating, by using at least one simulation unit comprising a processor (Narushima: [0040][0051], computer comprises a processor), the shaped body by varying values of the set of parameters and by comparing simulated criteria for these values with the set of target criteria, thereby generating at least one adapted set of parameters for which the target criteria are fulfilled at least within predetermined tolerances (Narushima: [0042]-[0044] – relaxation modulus Gj is calculated, which is used in [0044]-[0049] with [0049] "...[0049] The shape and thickness of element i are determined on the basis of the strain .epsilon..sub.i obtained here. The shape and thickness distribution of the entire parison are determined by combining the results for all the elements. The intra-die strain .epsilon..sub.d mentioned above is determined so that the parison length obtained from equation (5) matches the target length. This is usually achieved by repeatedly calculating equations (1), (4) and (5)...."); and
e) determining, by using at least one lead candidate geometry defining unit comprising a processor (Narushima: [0040][0051], computer comprises a processor), at least one lead candidate geometry of the at least one shaped body from the adapted set of parameters (Narushima: [0049] repeated calculation to generate the target length; the process being performed with different die designs as in Figs.2, 6 and 7; Fig.6 showing lead candidate geometries as delta a/ delta b measurements).
Regarding Claim 7
Narushima teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the starting geometry defined in step ii) comprises at least one negative geometry of the at least one lead candidate geometry (Narushima: Fig.3 & 6 core dimensions (delta a) is the negative geometry that shapes the inner tube of the shape body) .
Regarding Claim 8
Narushima teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the shaping target criteria retrieved in step i) comprise at least one predetermined tolerance of the shaping tool for shaping the at least one shaped body (Narushima: Fig.6 is suitability determination where the ratio determines the suitability of the ratio and adapts the ratio for the suitability of the shape (in this case close to linear deformation); [0009] as thresholds; [0014] optimality; [0036] weight and constraints as various predetermined tolerance aspects) .
Regarding Claim 9
Narushima teaches the method according to claim1, wherein the target criteria contain at least one constraint selected from the group consisting of. a geometry constraint; a weight constraint; a surface area constraint; a density constraint; a mechanical strength constraint; a pressure drop constraint; a heat transport constraint; a mass transport constraint; a productivity constraint; a shaping process constraint; an economic constraint (Narushima: [0014] "... the fourth step can include a step for evaluating, in terms of molded product strength and thermal deformation stability, the thickness distribution of the resin after it has been blown against the walls of the mold cavity, and for obtaining, on the basis of this evaluation, the shape of the extruder die and core that will give the optimum thickness distribution....") .
Regarding Claim 10
Narushima teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein at least one of the target criteria of the set of target criteria comprises at least one condition to be fulfilled by the shaped body(Narushima: [0014] "... the fourth step can include a step for evaluating, in terms of molded product strength and thermal deformation stability, the thickness distribution of the resin after it has been blown against the walls of the mold cavity, and for obtaining, on the basis of this evaluation, the shape of the extruder die and core that will give the optimum thickness distribution....").
Regarding Claim 20 (Updated 6/12/2026)
Narushima teaches (Claim 20) A shaping tool designing system (Narushima teaches : [0040], [0051] & Fig. 7) for designing at least one shaping tool, wherein the shaping tool is one or more of a tableting tool and an extrusion die (Narushima: Fig. 7), the shaping tool designing system comprising: u. at least one interface configured for retrieving at least one set of shaping target criteria for the shaping tool(Narushima: [0038]"... [0038] As shown in FIG. 6, the extruder die and core that were previously selected are used as the initial shape (S11) and the thickness distribution of the molded product is obtained by extrusion simulation and clamping-blowing simulation (S12)..."); v. at least one geometry defining unit comprising a processor (Narushima: [0040][0051], computer comprises a processor) configured for defining at least one starting geometry for the shaping tool (Narushima: [0038] shape parameter a & b as shown in Fig.3 ); w. at least one shaping parameter generating unit comprising a processor (Narushima: [0040][0051], computer comprises a processor) configured for generating a set of shaping parameters comprising at least one shape geometry parameter of the starting geometry, wherein the set of shaping parameters represent at least one property and/or behavior of the shaping tool when the shaping tool is used for shaping at least one object (Narushima: Figs. 9 showing the core and die leading to shaping of the object , Also see Figs. 4A-4C); x. at least one simulation unit comprising a processor (Narushima: [0040][0051], computer comprises a processor), configured for simulating a shaping process using the shaping tool by varying values of the set of shaping parameters and by comparing simulated shaping properties for these values with the set of shaping target criteria, thereby generating at least one adapted set of shaping parameters for which the shaping target criteria are fulfilled at least within predetermined tolerances (Narushima: Fig.2, Fig.6 and Fig. 7 [0038]-[0039]; [0009] "... comparing this difference with a threshold; and changing the aforementioned initial shape on the basis of this difference if the difference exceeds the threshold. ..." - tolerance as threshold which is used in background also in Fig.6 and 7), wherein the adapted set of shaping parameters refers to an adapted set of values of shaping parameters (Narushima: [0038] & Fig.6 as changing geometric parameter a/b ratios) wherein when simulating the shaping process using the shaping tool, the values of the set of shaping parameters of the starting geometry are varied, wherein the varying of the values of the set of shaping parameters is performed iteratively until the values of the set of shaping parameters are such that the shaping process using the shaping tool fulfills the set of shaping target criteria at least within predetermined tolerances (Narushima: [0038] & Fig.6 as changing geometric parameter a/b ratios, the predetermined criteria is deformation of the molded product is close to a linear deformation), and wherein the set of shaping parameters of the starting geometry (Narushima: first, the starting geometry of the die and core are specified [0014]"... the first step can include a step for obtaining the parison shape and thickness distribution by assigning values to the shape of the gap between the extruder die and core [initial core and die starting geometry] and to the physical properties of the resin...") is adapted or changed (Narushima : [0014] "...the fourth step can include a step for evaluating, in terms of molded product strength and thermal deformation stability, the thickness distribution of the resin after it has been blown against the walls of the mold cavity, and for obtaining, on the basis of this evaluation, the shape of the extruder die and core that will give the optimum thickness distribution [updating the core and die that gives optimum thickness distribution] ...."; [0037]-[0038] Fig.7) according to the shaping target criteria when simulating the shaping process using the shaping tool (Narushima: [0014] "... the second step can include a step for predicting deformation of the parison due to its being clamped and blown, and for obtaining the thickness distribution of the resin after it has been blown against the walls of the mold cavity;. ..." [this is actual simulation] --- it can be seen that parameters for core and die are adjusted for this iterative simulation [0037]-[0038] & Fig.7); and y. at least one shaping tool geometry defining unit comprising a processor (Narushima: [0040][0051], computer comprises a processor), configured for determining at least one geometry of the at least one shaping tool from the adapted set of shaping parameters, wherein the geometry of the shaping tool is a three-dimensional form or shape of the shaping tool (Narushima: Fig.1 element S6, adaptation of a/b in Fig.6 and Fig.7, Fig.3 (x-y as a-b) & 9 (x-y as r and vertical as z) showing the 2 view of the three-dimensional form of the realized shaping tool).
Regarding Claim 21
Narushima teaches the shaping tool designing system according to claim 20, wherein the shaping tool designing system is configured for performing the method according to claim 1 referring to a method of designing at least one shaping tool (Narushima : as mapped in the claim 1) .
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Claim 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5822206 A by Sebastian; Donald et al.
Regarding Claim 22 (Updated 6/12/2026)
Sebastian teaches (Claim 22) A manufacture-designing system (Sebastian : Fig.2) for designing a manufacturing process for manufacturing at least one shaped body (Examiner interpretation: shaped body is the actual molded product and not the shape of the tool) , the manufacture-designing system comprising the shaping tool designing system claim 20, the manufacture-designing system further comprising a designing system for designing at least one shaped body
A. at least one interface configured for retrieving at least one set of target criteria for the shaped body (Sebastian: Interface as in 2A-2B and Fig.3 elements 42-46; Fig.3-4 Col.15 Lines 14-Col.16 Line 4 showing material and economic criteria as targets; Col.20 46—Col.21 Lines 15);
B. at least one geometry defining unit comprising a processor (Sebastian : Fig.2 element 32) configured for defining at least one seed geometry for the shaped body (Sebastian: Fig.3 Col.15 Lines 54-62; Also Fig.1 elements 4-8 );
C. at least one parameter generating unit comprising a processor (Sebastian : Fig.2 element 32) configured for generating a set of parameters comprising at least one geometry parameter of the seed geometry (Sebastian: Fig.1 elements 30, 32, 28 leading to detailed part design 8 Fig.3 Col.15 Lines 54-62; Col.7 Lines 13-Col.8 Line 65; a set of parameters is for the seed geometry of the shaped body, not the body of the tool. These can be further seen as item 4 in Fig.1 or Fig.2A element 202);
D. at least one simulation unit comprising a processor (Sebastian : Fig.2 element 32) configured for simulating the shaped body by varying values of the set of parameters and by comparing simulated criteria for these values with the set of target criteria, thereby generating at least one adapted set of parameters for which the target criteria are fulfilled at least within predetermined tolerances tolerances (Sebastian: Col.20 46—Col.21 Lines 15 "... Iterative: Find the lowest cost combination of wall thickness and material types with a weight less than 1 lb and deflection less than one hundredth of an inch...."; Col.1 Lines 40-44 "... The next stage, after a prototype of the part has been made, is revising the design. The above steps of part, tool and process design are repeated until a satisfactory part is produced, both as to design and cost of production...." simulation performed by Fig.3 elements 28/32 CAD/FEM; Again the varying of parameter is varying parameter of the shaped body/molded product; not the body of the tool/mold); and
E. at least one lead candidate geometry defining unit comprising a processor (Sebastian : Fig.2 element 32) configured for determining at least one lead candidate geometry of the at least one shaped body from the adapted set of parameters (Sebastian: Col.17 Lines 9-20; Col.15 Lines 36-55) wherein the seed geometry is a predefined seed geometry (Sebastian: Col.15 Lines 54-62; Col.18 Lines 59-Col.19) stored in a data storage of a computer (Sebastian : Fig.2 element 34; Col.11 Lines 30-35; Col.17 Lines 21-29;), and wherein when simulating the shaping process using the shaping tool (Sebastian: Col.20 Lines 9-31) , the values of the set of shaping parameters of the seed geometry are varied (Sebastian: Col.21 Lines 11-13) , wherein the varying of the values of the set of shaping parameters is performed iteratively until the values of the set of shaping parameters are such that the shaping process using the shaping tool fulfills the set of shaping target criteria at least within predetermined tolerances (Sebastian: Col.21 Lines 11-13; Col.18 Lines 19-33; Col.9 Lines 31-40 "... When using the core design module of the present invention, tooling elements that "touch" (or have an effect on) the material or constrain its behavior such as, for example, (in injection molding), parting line gate and ejector pin location, can be considered and taken into account when designing the part. As another example, in injection molding, process elements that alter the feed material characteristics or influence the melt flow characteristics such as, for example plasticating rate, injection rate, and coolant flow can also be considered at the part design stage. These elements, in turn may set the constraints for subsequent decisions as tool and process are designed. For example, the envelope of part dimensions constrains the overall tool dimensions, which in turn, dictate the minimum machine size necessary to accommodate the tool. As another example, in injection molding of plastics, the part volume dictates the shot size and plasticating ratio, both of which constrain lower and upper limits on the machine size, as well as dictating operating conditions...."), wherein the set of shaping parameters of the starting geometry is adapted or changed according to the shaping target criteria when simulating the shaping process using the shaping tool (Sebastian:Col.1 Lines 40-44 "... The next stage, after a prototype of the part has been made, is revising the design. The above steps of part, tool and process design are repeated until a satisfactory part is produced, both as to design and cost of production...." simulation performed by Fig.3 elements 28/32 CAD/FEM; Again the varying of parameter is varying parameter of the shaped body/molded product; not the body of the tool/mold).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claim at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claim the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claim was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20010028122 A1 by Narushima, Takeshi et al., in view of US 6233500 B1 by Malas; James C. et al.
Regarding Claim 11 (Alternate rejection1)
Teachings of Narushima are shown in the parent claim 6.
Narushima is mapped to teach target criteria for shape body predetermined tolerance (Narushima: Fig.6 is suitability determination where the ratio determines the suitability of the ratio and adapts the ratio for the suitability of the shape (in this case close to linear deformation); [0009] as thresholds; [0014] optimality; [0036] weight and constraints as various predetermined tolerance aspects) for at least one predetermined application purpose (Narushima: Fig.6 is suitability determination where the ratio determines the suitability of the ratio and adapts the ratio for the suitability of the shape (in this case close to linear deformation) for molding application)..
Arguendo even if Narushima does not teach above.
Malas teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the target criteria comprise at least one predetermined tolerance of the shaped body for at least one predetermined application purpose (Malas: Col.11 Lines 26-63; Col.12 Table 1; Abstract "... Using the optimal trajectories and appropriate optimality criteria, suitable process parameters such as ram velocity and die profile for processing the material are determined to achieve prescribed strain, strain rate and temperature trajectories....") .
It would have been obvious to one (e.g. a designer) of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Malas to Narushima to modify the die (shaping tool) design based on extrudate (shape body) meeting a specific optimality condition for die design (Malas: Table 1-3). The motivation to combine would have been that Malas complements the measurements & simulation of extrusion process in Narushima (Narushima: Fig.4A-4C; Figs.3, 6, 7) may be applied to a wide range of process models, including simple slab type models and high fidelity finite element simulation models, and is useful in the optimal design and control of manufacturing processes needed for effectively reducing part cost and improving production efficiency and product quality (Malas:Col.1 Lines 51-56). Additional motivation to combine would be that Malas and Narushima are analogous art to the instant invention in the field of die design based using simulation (Malas: Col.1 Lines 51-56, Abstract; Narushima: Abstract).
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Claim(s) 4 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20010028122 A1 by Narushima, Takeshi et al., in view of NPL by C.Y Wu et al (“Optimal Shape Design of an Extrusion Die Using Polynomial Networks and Genetic Algorithms”; Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2002) 19:79–87).
Regarding Claims 42 & 123
Teachings of Narushima are shown in the parent claim 1.
Narushima teaches adapted set of parameters are preset (Table 1). Narushima does not explicitly teach adapted set of parameters are generated as claimed.
Wu teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the adapted set of parameters in step iv) is generated by applying at least one operation selected from the group consisting of a non-linear algorithm; a stochastic algorithm; a genetic algorithm; an artificial intelligence algorithm; a gradient-based algorithm; a multi-criteria optimization function; sequential quadratic programming; method of feasible directions; quasi- newton method; and newton method (Wu: §3 showing using polynomial network; §4 showing use of genetic algorithm and Pg.87 - Table 4 showing optimalisation based on both polynomial network . e.g. Pg. 82 Col.2 "... The relationship models identified by polynomial networks are used in genetic algorithms to search for the optimal shape of the extrusion die....") .
It would have been obvious to one (e.g. a designer) of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Wu to Narushima to modify the die (shaping tool) design based on die optimization for minimum force and strain meeting a specific optimality condition for die design (Wu: Abstract). The motivation to combine would have been that Wu complements Narushima (Narushima: Table 1 ) and adds to Table 1 by optimizing the shape design of the extrusion die. Rather than having preset values (design from experience – as in Wu Abstract), Wu uses genetic algorithm (Wu: §4) thereby overcoming current limitation and for achieving the flexibility and precision requirements in die design (Wu: Abstract). Additional motivation to combine would be that Wu and Narushima are analogous art to the instant invention in the field of die design based using simulation (Wu:Abstract §4 & §6; Narushima: Abstract).
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Claim(s) 13-16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5822206 A by Sebastian; Donald et al., in view of US 20220258222 A1 by Tozier; Mike et al.
Regarding Claim 13 (Updated 6/12/2026)
Sebastian teaches (Claim 13) A computer-implemented method for designing a manufacturing process for manufacturing at least one shaped body (Sebastian : Fig.1 and Fig.3) comprising:
I) designing the shaped body by using a computer-implemented method for designing at least one shaped body
a) retrieving at least one set of target criteria for the shaped body (Sebastian: Fig.3-4 Col.15 Lines 14-Col.16 Line 4 showing material and economic criteria as targets; Col.20 46—Col.21 Lines 15) ;
b) defining at least one seed geometry for the shaped body (Sebastian: Fig.3 Col.15 Lines 54-62; Also Fig.1 elements 4-8 ) ;
c) generating a set of parameters comprising at least one geometry parameter of the seed geometry (Sebastian: Fig.1 elements 30, 32, 28 leading to detailed part design 8 Fig.3 Col.15 Lines 54-62; Col.7 Lines 13-Col.8 Line 65) ;
d) simulating the shaped body by varying values of the set of parameters and by comparing simulated criteria for these values with the set of target criteria, thereby generating at least one adapted set of parameters for which the target criteria are fulfilled at least within predetermined tolerances (Sebastian: Col.20 46—Col.21 Lines 15 "... Iterative: Find the lowest cost combination of wall thickness and material types with a weight less than 1 lb and deflection less than one hundredth of an inch...."; Col.1 Lines 40-44 "... The next stage, after a prototype of the part has been made, is revising the design. The above steps of part, tool and process design are repeated until a satisfactory part is produced, both as to design and cost of production...."); simulation performed by Fig.3 elements 28/32 CAD/FEM wherein the set of shaping parameters of the starting geometry is adapted or changed according to the shaping target criteria when simulating the shaping process using the shaping tool in step d (Sebastian: Col.1 Lines 40-44 "... The next stage, after a prototype of the part has been made, is revising the design. The above steps of part, tool and process design are repeated until a satisfactory part is produced, both as to design and cost of production...." simulation performed by Fig.3 elements 28/32 CAD/FEM; Again the varying of parameter is varying parameter of the shaped body/molded product; not the body of the tool/mold).
; and
e) determining at least one lead candidate geometry of the at least one shaped body from the adapted set of parameters (Sebastian: Col.17 Lines 9-20; Col.15 Lines 36-55) ; and
II) designing at least one shaping tool for manufacturing the shaped body by the method according to claim 1 (mapping as in claim 1) , wherein at least one negative geometry of the at least one lead candidate geometry determined in step I) is used as the starting geometry (Sebastian: Fig.1 elements 12, 34; Fig.3; Fig.52 element 52 after approval in element 48-50; mold may be considered as negative geometry) ;
III) prototyping the at least one shaping tool from at least one geometry of the shaping tool (Sebastian: Fig.1 elements 12, 14, 16, 18; Fig.3 element 56; 60) , wherein the process is selected from the group consisting of: a rapid prototyping process, specifically an additive manufacturing process, more specifically one or more of a 3D printing process or an additive layer manufacturing process; a conventional prototyping process, e.g. a subtractive prototyping process; a spark erosion process (Sebastian: Fig.3 element 52 (rapid tooling generation) and 60) .
Although Sebastian teaches tool generation based on the design (as mapped above), it does not explicitly state wherein at least one negative geometry of the at least one lead candidate geometry determined in step I) is used as the starting geometry.
Tozier teaches wherein at least one negative geometry of the at least one lead candidate geometry determined in step I) is used as the starting geometry (Tozier: Fig.6 & [0037] and specifically "... Based on the analysis, at 204, the method may include designing one or more simulated external clamp blocks [these are negative contours to design which adhere to the design] that may form to the contours of external surfaces of the extrusion work piece [shape body in claim], and designing one or more simulated internal clamp blocks that may form to the contours of the internal cavities of the extrusion work piece, if any. As described above, in some embodiments, the external and internal clamp blocks may be designed so as to substantially maximize surface area contact between external surfaces of the work piece and the external clamp blocks and between internal surfaces of the work piece and the internal clamp blocks. . If, at 208, the output results of the simulation do not indicate desirable results, such as uniform stretch, strain, and twist across the entire length of the profile and other consistencies, the method may include returning to step 204 to re-design the clamp blocks based on the simulation results....").
Regarding Claim 14
Sebastian teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the target criteria contain at least one constraint selected from the group consisting of: a geometry constraint; a weight constraint; a surface area constraint; a density constraint; a mechanical strength constraint; a pressure drop constraint; a heat transport constraint; a mass transport constraint; a productivity constraint; a shaping process constraint; an economic constraint (Sebastian: Col.20 46—Col.21 Lines 15 "... Iterative: Find the lowest cost combination of wall thickness and material types with a weight less than 1 lb and deflection less than one hundredth of an inch...."; Col.1 Lines 40-44 "... The next stage, after a prototype of the part has been made, is revising the design. The above steps of part, tool and process design are repeated until a satisfactory part is produced, both as to design and cost of production....") .
Regarding Claim 15
Sebastian teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein at least one of the target criteria of the set of target criteria comprises at least one condition to be fulfilled by the shaped body(Sebastian: Col.20 46—Col.21 Lines 15 "... Iterative: Find the lowest cost combination of wall thickness and material types with a weight less than 1 lb and deflection less than one hundredth of an inch...."; Col.1 Lines 40-44 "... The next stage, after a prototype of the part has been made, is revising the design. The above steps of part, tool and process design are repeated until a satisfactory part is produced, both as to design and cost of production....") ..
Regarding Claim 16
Sebastian teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the target criteria comprise at least one predetermined tolerance of the shaped body for at least one predetermined application purpose (Sebastian teaches the: Col.6 Lines 11-24; Col.9 Lines 26-40 as upper and lower limits) .
Regarding Claim 18
Tozier teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the method further comprises: IV) manufacturing the at least one shaped body from the prototyped shaping tool (Tozier: Fig. 6 elements 210-212-214); and V) experimentally validating one or more of the shaped body and the shaping tool (Tozier: Fig.6 element 214, 216, 218, 206, [0038]).
Regarding Claim 19
Tozier teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein at least one of the shaped bodies experimentally validated in step V) is the shaped body manufactured in step IV) by using the prototyped shaping tool(Tozier: [0037]-[0038] "... In some embodiments, at 216, the method may include testing the work piece to determine whether certain predetermined parameters regarding tolerance, stretch, strain, twist, or other properties are within predetermined thresholds. For example, some testing may include measuring the dimensions of the work piece to confirm that those dimensions meet the desired tolerances for the particular work piece design and/or customer or application limitations. Some testing may include measuring the work piece's stress, strain, and deformation, for example, to determine that the levels and distribution of such parameters may be within predetermined thresholds...." & Fig.6).
Claim(s) 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US US 5822206 A by Sebastian; Donald et al., in view of US 20220258222 A1 by Tozier; Mike et al., further in view of US 20190056715 A1 SUBRAMANIYAN; Arun Karthi et al.
Regarding Claim 17
Teachings of Sebastian and Tozier are show in the parent claim 13.
Sebastian and Tozier do not explicitly teach limitations of claim 17.
Subramaniyan teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the adapted set of parameters in step d) is generated by applying at least one operation selected from the group consisting of: a non-linear algorithm; a stochastic algorithm; a genetic algorithm; an artificial intelligence algorithm; a gradient-based algorithm; a multi-criteria optimization function; sequential quadratic programming; method of feasible directions; quasi- newton method; newton method (Subramaniyan: Fig.17 & [0053 using interactive generative design using genetic algorithm [0029] for creating parts which may be used material extrusion [0038]) . Motivation to combine Sebastian and Tozier is incorporated from the parent claim.
It would have been obvious to one (e.g. a designer) of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Subramaniyan to Sebastian and Tozier to modify the design to come up with best design by using genetic algorithm/generative design to reduce design cycle time (Subramaniyan: [0002]). The motivation to combine would have been that Subramaniyan complements Sebastian(Sebastian: Fig.1 elements 4-8) in designing the part in a more time efficient manner by reducing the number of iterations/cost to achieve optimal geometry (Subramaniyan: [0002][0061]) .
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH SAXENA whose telephone number is (571)272-8351. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7AM-3:30PM.
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, RYAN PITARO can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
AKASH SAXENA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/AKASH SAXENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188 Friday, June 12, 2026
1 In view amendment his may be rejected with Narushima alone also as mapped in claim 11 rejection.
2 Also see NPL by Guoqun Zhao et al (“Multiobjective optimization design of porthole extrusion die
using Pareto-based genetic algorithm” – cited by applicant) for claim 4.
3 Also see US 20220258222 A1 Fig.6 and [0037] for claim 12 where machine learning or other artificial intelligence techniques may be used to identify the optimal design for and number of the clamp blocks [die design] based on the geometry of the particular work piece, material type, application, etc.
Also see US 20190056715 A1 by SUBRAMANIYAN; Arun Karthi et al.
Prosecution Insights