Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is final.
This action is in response to the communications filed on 03/09/3026 and 03/16/2026.
Claims 1-8 are pending and have been considered. Claims 1-8 have been amended.
The foreign priority is acknowledged.
The rejection on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting is withdrawn
Claims 1- 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception, an abstract idea (mental process and mathematical concept), without significantly more.
The rejection of independent Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150039247 A1 (“Minote”) in view of US 20110246150 A1 (“Miyagi”) is withdrawn and as a consequence also the dependent claim rejections.
Claim 1, 5 is found unpatentable over Lim et al Time-dependent Springback, Int J Mater Form (2008) Suppl 1:1577–16 (“LIM”) in view of Minote et al, US 20150039247 A1
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al Time-dependent Springback, Int J Mater Form (2008) Suppl 1:1577–16 (“LIM”) in view of Minote et al, US 20150039247 A1 further in view of JP 2007217736 A (“Shunsuke”)
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIM Lim et al Time-dependent Springback, Int J Mater Form (2008) Suppl 1:1577–16 (“LIM”) in view of
Minote et al, US 20150039247 A1 in further in view of JP 2011000603 A (“Hamada”), in further view of JP 2007217736 A (“Shunsuke”)
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIM Lim et al Time-dependent Springback, Int J Mater Form (2008) Suppl 1:1577–16 (“LIM”) in view of Minote et al, US 20150039247 A1 further in view of JP 2007217736 A (“Shunsuke”)
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIM Lim et al Time-dependent Springback, Int J Mater Form (2008) Suppl 1:1577–16 (“LIM”) in view of over Minote et al, US 20150039247 A1 further in view of JP 2011000603 A (“Hamada”), in further view of JP 2007217736 A (“Shunsuke”)
Response to Amendments/Arguments
The Examiner thanks the Applicant for the Amendments and Arguments filed on 03/09/2026 which have been considered and which help clarifying the claimed invention and advance prosecution.
Claims 1-8 have been amended.
In view of the arguments the IDS and priority are acknowledged.
In view of the Terminal Disclaimer the provisional rejection on the ground of double patenting is withdrawn.
Re Claims 1-8, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, the arguments have been considered but have not been found persuasive.
The claim continues to recite abstract idea in its limitations. In view of the amendments and arguments, and in view of the specification, understanding that “the determining step in particular requires solving for a shape across an entire press formed part geometry at which all moments of force reach equilibrium given a modified stress distribution requires working with stress distributions across part geometry and solving for force-balanced shapes, the limitation is interpreted as reciting mathematical operations. If one would not be this implied complexity, the limitation was interpreted a mental, since as recited it could potentially have been performed by observing curves/graphs that may represent shape/deformation as a function of residual stress.
Interpreting setting a value, (to simulate stress relaxation – which is interpreted as intended use) in the limitation as drafted, remains a mental process. While in view of the specification (“setting step includes calculating a ratio of the residual stress” ) a mathematical concept/operation is in fact recited, other that a potentially implied (though not recited) act of introducing the value into analysis remains a mental process.
The acquiring a shape was interpreted as a data acquisition step – largely due to the now removed elements “acquisition step”. The interpretation is to determining /obtaining from springback analysis the shape and residual stress. The springback analysis is not recited as a step, but as something from which shape and residual stress are obtained, thus the obtaining, though less of a generic data acquisition step, remains an insignificant extra-solution activity, which will also be shown to be WURC.
“insignificant extra-solution activity" does not discredit the value of the step – but it is not considered an improvement, since springback analysis by itself, dates to many years back, e.g. see Lim 2008, Time-dependent springback Int J Mater Form (2008) Suppl 1:1577–160, Lim 2012
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and prior art in references cited.
As the only additional elements outside the recited abstract idea, the insignificant extra-solution activity, not reciting any improvement or otherwise integrating into a practical application in the sense of MPEP guidance, results in the claim being directed to an abstract idea.
As these additional elements are WURC. They do not provide significantly more and hence the claim is not eligible under 35 USC 101. Dependent claims only further refine the abstract idea or introduce field of use limitations, without significantly more, thus remaining ineligible.
Regarding “each step is rooted in the physical context of press forming and springback, not in abstract manipulation of generic data” the analysis performed is first guided if abstract ideas are recited (even if in limitations rooted in physical context, which can be field of use) and – (which also relates to the improvement) if the “additional elements” (and not the abstract idea) provide the improvement. In the claim as recited, any perceived improvements appears to originate in the abstract idea (setting value and determining shape through the analysis involving equality of residual stress with reduced residual stress value.
The Examiner does acknowledge the improvement in prediction of shape as described in the specification. What is argued here is the specific drafting of what is claimed.
To make the claim not directed to an abstract idea under Step2A2e this improvement must be reflected in the claim, as obtained from additional elements (not from the abstract idea).
To the issue of significantly more on Step 2B, when claim is evaluated as a whole, the claim still fails short of significantly more (thank the abstract idea) – in other word still the abstract idea is the core of what provides innovative aspect and is claimed.
Regarding Claim 1-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 – Applicant’s arguments have been considered In view of the amendment a new search was performed, with a different combination of prior art being used, thus rendering the argument moot.
Priority
The application claims priority to the Japanese Application JP2020-023153, Filing Date 02/14/2020. The priority is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/10/2022, 05/13/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. T
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory
subject matter, a judicial exception (abstract idea, mental process) without significantly more.
(S1) Prima facie, claims 1-8 are each directed to a statutory category of invention: process (claims directed to a method).
(S2A1) Claims are analyzed under the Alice/Mayo framework to determine if directed to an ineligible judicial exception. Recitation of judicial exceptions are highlighted in bold font. Paraphrasing (in italics) is used to simplify referencing. Claims with similar limitations (even though not verbatim identical) and sharing the same rationale under Alice/Mayo steps S1 and S2, are grouped, as follows. The analysis is performed on a representative claim of the group; an additional analysis is performed if any claims in the group have additional limitations.
Claim 1 recites an abstract idea, shown in bold in the following: a shape change prediction method for a press formed part for predicting a shape change of the press formed part with a lapse of time units after springback at a moment of a release from a die, the shape change prediction method comprising:
[A} acquiring a shape and a residual stress of the press formed part immediately after the springback by a springback analysis of the press formed part;
[B] setting a value of a residual stress relaxed and reduced from the acquired residual stress to the press formed part immediately after the springback to simulate stress relaxation of the press formed part over time; (setting a value, choosing or deciding on a value is something a person commonly does in the mind, for example, based on an evaluation and judgement)
[C] determining a shape, in which moments of force are balanced, for the press formed part to which the value of the relaxed and reduced residual stress is set. (in view of the specification determine shape where forces are balanced – ie. equal – recites mathematical operations, unless it is a simple observation based on graphs indicating deformation as function of residual stress in which cae it would be mental process of simple evaluations to compare quantities (balanced) and using simple formulas such as percentages of change)
In broadest reasonable interpretation claim 1 recites: setting a value of reduced residual stress [B] and determine a shape [C]. In view of the guidance from MPEP 2106.04 II. B, the limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis, as a process aimed at: “set a value for residual stress and determine a shape ”. This is a combination of mental process and mathematical concept. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Interpreting setting a value, (to simulate stress relaxation – which is interpreted as intended use) in the limitation as drafted, remains a mental process. While in view of the specification (“setting step includes calculating a ratio of the residual stress” ) a mathematical concept/operation is in fact recited, other that a potentially implied (though not recited) act of introducing the value into analysis remains a mental process.
The acquiring a shape was interpreted as a data acquisition step – largely due to the now removed elements “acquisition step”. The interpretation is to determining /obtaining from springback analysis the shape and residual stress. The springback analysis is not recited as a step, but as something from which shape and residual stress are obtained, thus the obtaining, though less of a generic data acquisition step, remains an insignificant extra-solution activity, which will also be shown to be WURC.
“insignificant extra-solution activity" does not discredit the value of the step – but it is not considered an improvement, since springback analysis by itself, dates to many years back, e.g. see Lim 2008, Time-dependent springback Int J Mater Form (2008) Suppl 1:1577–160, Lim 2012
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and prior art in references cited.
As the only additional elements outside the recited abstract idea, the insignificant extra-solution activity, not reciting any improvement or otherwise integrating into a practical application in the sense of MPEP guidance, results in the claim being directed to an abstract idea.
As these additional elements are WURC. They do not provide significantly more and hence the claim is not eligible under 35 USC 101. Dependent claims only further refine the abstract idea or introduce field of use limitations, without significantly more, thus remaining ineligible.
Regarding “each step is rooted in the physical context of press forming and springback, not in abstract manipulation of generic data” the analysis performed is first guided if abstract ideas are recited (even if in limitations rooted in physical context, which can be field of use) and – (which also relates to the improvement) if the “additional elements” (and not the abstract idea) provide the improvement. In the claim as recited, any perceived improvements appears to originate in the abstract idea (setting value and determining shape through the analysis involving equality of residual stress with reduced residual stress value.
The Examiner does acknowledge the improvement in prediction of shape as described in the specification. What is argued here is the specific drafting of what is claimed.
To make the claim not directed to an abstract idea under Step2A2e this improvement must be reflected in the claim, as obtained from additional elements (not from the abstract idea).
To the issue of significantly more on Step 2B, when claim is evaluated as a whole, the claim still fails short of significantly more (thank the abstract idea) – in other word still the abstract idea is the core of what provides innovative aspect and is claimed.
Claims 2-5 recite:
[Claim 2] wherein the residual stress of the entire press is reduced immediately after the spring back at a predetermined rate. (provides details to the abstract idea of the independent claim, the, by indicating where it is applied and indicating a rate of reduction.)
[Claim 3] further comprising calculating a ratio of the residual stress of the press formed part immediately after the springback to tensile strength of a blank used for press forming of the press formed part, and reducing a residual stress of only a portion in which the calculated ratio is equal to or higher than a predetermined value at a predetermined rate. (provides details to the abstract idea of the independent claim, indicating how to locate the portion where it is applied and indicating how to calculate the rate of reduction; it also recites mathematical concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I) of calculation and equal or higher comparison).
[Claim 4] further comprising calculating a ratio of the residual stress of the press formed part immediately after the springback to tensile strength of a blank used for press forming of the press formed part, and reducing residual stresses of portions at different rates between a portion in which the calculated ratio is equal to or higher than a predetermined value and a portion in which the calculated ratio is lower than the predetermined value. (provides details to the abstract idea of the independent claim indicating how to locate the portion where it is applied and indicating how to calculate the rate of reduction; it also recites mathematical concepts of calculation and equal or higher comparison)
The limitations of claims 2-4 only recite mental processes and mathematical concepts and provide further details and reinforce the abstract idea of the independent claim. There are no additional limitations to provide significantly more, in order to change the nature of the abstract idea, and thus the claims remaining directed to the abstract idea of “set a value for residual stress and determine a shape”.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 5-8, depending on claims 1-4 respectively, recite the same limitation in each claim:
wherein a blank used for press forming of the press formed part is a metal sheet having tensile strength of a 150 MPa grade or higher and a 2000 MPa grade or lower.
These further elements in the dependent claims 5-8 do not perform any claimed method steps. The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment. They describe the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements (tensile strength) and as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea from a judicial exception into eligible subject matter, because they do not represent significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 5-8 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and are rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1, 5 is found unpatentable over Lim et al Time-dependent Springback, Int J Mater Form (2008) Suppl 1:1577–16 (“LIM”) in view of Minote et al, US 20150039247 A1
Regarding claim 1, LIM teaches
acquiring a shape and a residual stress of the press formed part immediately after the springback by a springback analysis of the press formed part; determining a shape after the lapse of the time unit, in which moments of force are balanced, for the press formed part to which the value of the relaxed and reduced residual stress is set { (p 159 : 3.4 Simulation of springback - A simple finite element model was constructed using ABAQUS/Standard to simulate time-dependent springback based on residual stress driven creep…. Fig. 7 compares measured and simulated initial springback angles (t=30s).; p160 the sheet after each simulation step is shown in Fig. 8 P. 160 At the end of forming and unloading, the maximum tensile residual stress is reduced by 70% after 1.8×107s (~7 months).
PNG
media_image2.png
591
404
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The teaching shows the time dependency of relaxed residual stress and shape. When the forces are balanced is interpreted as when the residual stress is equal to that of a specific set value, eg. Of 70% of the initial value and that happens after a determined value of time. After that lapse of time the specific deformation is inferred based on simulation as shown in Fig 9. Otherwise said a specific residual stress at a specific time lapse corresponds a specific shape/deformation. A POSITA would understand that setting a residual stress would result in a specific shape/deformation.
LIN does not teach but Minote does teach:
Setting a value of a residual stress relaxed and reduced from the acquired residual stress to the press formed part immediately after the springback to simulate stress relaxation of the press formed part over time { Minote: para [0093], The springback analyzing unit 15 then sets the residual stress in the region a to zero, and releases the residual stress in the other regions to induce springback. At this time, the springback analyzing unit 15 calculates the angle of torsion, the amount of curve at a certain location, and the like in the shape after the springback as a deformation value}
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined LIM and Minote One would have been motivated to make such a combination to obtain use initial values of residual stress and shape to introduce/calibrate the analysis. Thus the matter would be obvious over LIM in view of Minote.
Regarding claim 5, LIM.Minote teach limitations of the parent claim. LIM further teaches:
wherein a blank used for press forming of the press formed part is a metal sheet having tensile strength of a 150 MPa grade or higher and a 2000 MPa grade or lower {LIM: [para 2.1] In order to compare the time-dependent springback of steels, three conventional steels (AKDQ, DQSK, HSLA steels) and four AHSSs, (DP600, DP800, DP980 and TRIP 780) were considered. Mechanical properties of tested steels are listed in Table 1. Table 1. } UTS is Lltimate Tensile Strength. Values are between 150MPa and 2000 MPa
-
PNG
media_image3.png
80
473
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al Time-dependent Springback, Int J Mater Form (2008) Suppl 1:1577–16 (“LIM”) in view of Minote et al, US 20150039247 A1 further in view of JP 2007217736 A (“Shunsuke”)
Regarding claim 2, LIM/Minote i do not teach, however Shunsuke does teach:
wherein the residual stress of the entire press formed part is reduced immediately after the springback at a predetermined rate {Shunsuke:[p 10 first para] “rate of decrease in residual stress is shown in Fig. 1” [p 15 first para] “residual stress reduction rate is not less than 50%”}
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined LIM/Minote (directed to shape change prediction while reducing residual stress) and Shunsuke (directed to high quality auto structural components using rates of reducing residual stress) and arrived at prediction of reducing stress at given rates. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to have the advantage of characterizing the material changes in different conditions of residual stress reduction.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIM Lim et al Time-dependent Springback, Int J Mater Form (2008) Suppl 1:1577–16 (“LIM”) in view of
Minote et al, US 20150039247 A1 in further in view of JP 2011000603 A (“Hamada”), in further view of JP 2007217736 A (“Shunsuke”)
Regarding claim 3 LIM/Minotei teach the limitations of claim 1. They do not teach, however Hamada does teach:
Further comprising calculating a ratio of the residual stress of the press formed part immediately after the springback to tensile strength of a blank used for press forming of the press formed part; and {Hamada:[p3, ¾ of page] “ratio (σr / σB) of the residual stress σr to the tensile strength (tensile strength) σB”}
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined LIM/Minote (directed to shape change prediction while reducing residual stress in steels) and Hamada (directed to manufacturing of steel including steel properties) and arrived at calculating the σr / σB in the analysis of steel behavior for prediction of reducing stress in steel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to have the advantage of including material (steel) characteristics in the models if residual stress relaxation.
LIM/Minote,, Hamada do not teach, however Shunsuke does teach:
reducing a residual stress of only a portion in which the calculated ratio is equal to or higher than a predetermined value at a predetermined rate. {Shunsuke:[p.9 2nd para “balancing the cross-section hardness change rate and residual stress reduction rate”} reducing residual stress of only a portion in which the calculated ratio is equal to or higher than a predetermined value at a predetermined rate is interpreted as balancing the cross-section hardness change rate and residual stress reduction rate.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined LIM/Minote, Hamada, (directed to shape change prediction while reducing residual stress in steels) and Shunsuke (directed to high quality auto structural components using rates of reducing residual stress) and arrived at reducing residual stress only in certain portions, in particular where the ratio, ultimately the residual stress was higher than a value. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to have the advantage of reducing residual stress in the critical areas (where it was higher than a threshold).
Regarding claim 4 LIM/Minotei teach the limitations of claim 1. LIM/Minotei do not teach, however Hamada does teach:
further comprising calculating a ratio of the residual stress of the press formed part immediately after the springback to tensile strength of a blank used for press forming of the press formed part; and {Hamada:[p3, ¾ of page] “ratio (σr / σB) of the residual stress σr to the tensile strength (tensile strength) σB”}
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined LIM/Minote and (directed to shape change prediction while reducing residual stress in steels) and Hamada (directed to manufacturing of steel including steel properties) and arrived at calculating the σr / σB in the analysis of steel behavior for prediction of reducing stress in steel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to have the advantage of including material (steel) characteristics in the models if residual stress relaxation.
LIM/Minote,Hamada do not teach, however Shunsuke does teach:
reducing residual stresses of portions at different rates between a portion in which the calculated ratio is equal to or higher than a predetermined value and a portion in which the calculated ratio is lower than the predetermined value. {Shunsuke:[p.9 2nd para “balancing the cross-section hardness change rate and residual stress reduction rate”} reducing residual stress at different rates in different portions is interpreted as balancing the cross-section hardness change rate and residual stress reduction rate.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined LIM/Minote,, Hamada, (directed to shape change prediction while reducing residual stress in steels) and Shunsuke (directed to high quality auto structural components using rates of reducing residual stress) and arrived at reducing residual stress only in certain portions, in particular where the ratio, ultimately the residual stress was higher than a value. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to have the advantage of reducing residual stress in the critical areas (where it was higher than a threshold).
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIM Lim et al Time-dependent Springback, Int J Mater Form (2008) Suppl 1:1577–16 (“LIM”) in view of Minote et al, US 20150039247 A1 further in view of JP 2007217736 A (“Shunsuke”)
Regarding claim 6, LIMMinote/Shunsuke teach limitations of the parent claim LIM further teaches:
wherein a blank used for press forming of the press formed part is a metal sheet having tensile strength of a 150 MPa grade or higher and a 2000 MPa grade or lower {LIM: [para 2.1] In order to compare the time-dependent springback of steels, three conventional steels (AKDQ, DQSK, HSLA steels) and four AHSSs, (DP600, DP800, DP980 and TRIP 780) were considered. Mechanical properties of tested steels are listed in Table 1. Table 1. } UTS is Lltimate Tensile Strength. Values are between 150MPa and 2000 MPa
-
PNG
media_image3.png
80
473
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIM Lim et al Time-dependent Springback, Int J Mater Form (2008) Suppl 1:1577–16 (“LIM”) in view of over Minote et al, US 20150039247 A1 further in view of JP 2011000603 A (“Hamada”), in further view of JP 2007217736 A (“Shunsuke”)
Regarding claim 7,LIM/ Minote/Hamada/Shunsuke teach limitations of the parent claim Lim further does teaches:
wherein a blank used for press forming of the press formed part is a metal sheet having tensile strength of a 150 MPa grade or higher and a 2000 MPa grade or lower {LIM: [para 2.1] In order to compare the time-dependent springback of steels, three conventional steels (AKDQ, DQSK, HSLA steels) and four AHSSs, (DP600, DP800, DP980 and TRIP 780) were considered. Mechanical properties of tested steels are listed in Table 1. Table 1. } UTS is Lltimate Tensile Strength. Values are between 150MPa and 2000 MPa
-
PNG
media_image3.png
80
473
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Minote/Miyagi/Hamada/Shunsuke (directed to shape change prediction) and Lin (directed to tensile strength between 150-2000 MPa) and arrived at shape change prediction including tensile strength between 150-2000 MPa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to obtain the advantages of the advanced steels and alloys in the auto industry.
Regarding claim 8, LIM/ Minote/Hamada/Shunsuke teach limitations of the parent claim. LIM further teaches:
wherein a blank used for press forming of the press formed part is a metal sheet having tensile strength of a 150 MPa grade or higher and a 2000 MPa grade or lower {LIM: [para 2.1] In order to compare the time-dependent springback of steels, three conventional steels (AKDQ, DQSK, HSLA steels) and four AHSSs, (DP600, DP800, DP980 and TRIP 780) were considered. Mechanical properties of tested steels are listed in Table 1. Table 1. } UTS is Lltimate Tensile Strength. Values are between 150MPa and 2000 MPa
-
PNG
media_image3.png
80
473
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Prior art made of record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sumikawa et al. KR 20150110780 A
Wang 2004 Creep and anelasticity in the springback of aluminium Int J of Plasticiy, 20, 2004, pp 2209–2232
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIAN STOICA whose telephone number is (571) 272-3428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. -5 p.m. PT.
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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights