DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the submission filed on 8/10/2022. Claims 1-6 are presented for examination.
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 .
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1, lines 2-3 recite “predicting a shape change of the press formed part over time after springback at a moment of a release from a press-forming die”. It is unclear when the predicting is taking place. It is unclear if the springback is at the exact same time as the moment of release or if they are different points in time. It is unclear if the phrase should be “after springback and at a moment of a release”. If they are different points in time, it is unknown when the predicting takes place.
Claim 1, lines 4-6 recite “a shape/residual stress immediately after the springback acquisition step of 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.” This phrase is circular, confusing and nonsensical:
First, claim 1 is a method claim, therefore the limitation should begin with a verb for the method step.
Second, the term “a shape/residual stress” is completely unclear. There is no description in the disclosure of what a ‘shape stress’ would be, only residual stress. It is unknown if a shape is acquired and/or a residual stress is acquired.
Third, “the springback acquisition step of acquiring” lacks antecedent basis.
Fourth, use of the backslash means ‘and/or’. However, the limitation recites “acquiring a shape and a residual stress” which contradicts the backslash.
For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted to merely mean: “acquiring a shape and a residual stress of the press formed part immediately after springback by using a springback analysis of the press formed part”.
Claim 1, lines 7-9 recite “a residual stress relaxation/reduction setting step of setting a value of a residual stress relaxed and reduced from the acquired residual stress to all bent portions or a part of the bent portions in the press formed part immediately after the springback”.
As stated above, use of a backslash between relaxation and reduction expresses the concept of ‘and/or’. However, the limitation also indicates setting a value for both relaxed and reduced. It is unclear if both options are required.
Additionally, it is unknown what the difference is between relaxation and reduction in this context. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted to merely mean a step of reducing residual stress.
Finally referring to “all bent portions” implies that bent portions have been previously recited, but the term is not.
For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted to merely mean: “setting a value of a reduced residual stress to bent portion or a part of bent portions in the press formed part immediately after the springback”.
Claim 1, lines 10-12 recite “a shape analysis step of determining a shape in which moments of force are balanced for the press formed part in which the value of the residual stress relaxed and reduced in the bent portions is set”. It is unclear why it is a shape analysis, when shape determining is recited. It is unknown where the shape analysis is taking place. Additionally, including the phrase “in which the value of the residual stress relaxed and reduced in the bent portions is set” is redundant, as it is already known that the residual stress was set for that part. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted to merely mean: “determining a shape in which moments of force are balanced for the press formed part”.
Dependent claims 2-6 are rejected due to their dependency from the rejected independent claim 1.
Any application of prior art is the Examiner’s best interpretation of the claimed subject matter.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of
nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements
that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.(See MPEP 2106).
Step 1: With respect to claims 1-6, applying step 1, the preamble of independent claim 1 claims a method. As such these claims fall within the statutory category of process.
Step 2A, prong one: In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 1 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
A shape change prediction method for a press formed part for predicting a shape change of the press formed part over time after springback at a moment of a release from a press-forming die, the shape change prediction method comprising:
a shape/residual stress immediately after the springback acquisition step of 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;
a residual stress relaxation/reduction setting step of setting a value of a residual stress relaxed and reduced from the acquired residual stress to all bent portions or a part of the bent portions in the press formed part immediately after the springback (mental process/drawing with pen and paper –observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion); and
a shape analysis step of determining a shape in which moments of force are balanced for the press formed part in which the value of the residual stress relaxed and reduced in the bent portions is set (mental process/drawing with pen and paper –observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
The limitations as analyzed include concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claim involves setting a value and determining a shape. The steps are simple enough/broadly claimed that they could be performed mentally or with pen and paper. Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, prong two: Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: “a shape/residual stress immediately after the springback acquisition step of 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” (insignificant extra-solution activity - mere data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Moving on to step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as "apply it" or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations is considered directed towards data gathering. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h).
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. The same conclusion is reached for the dependent claims 2-6.
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 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 claims 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150039247 A1 (“Minote”) in view of US 20110246150 A1 (“Miyagi”).
Regarding claim 1, Minote teaches:
A shape change prediction method for a press formed part for predicting a shape change of the press formed part over time after springback at a moment of a release from a press-forming die (Minote: Abstract), the shape change prediction method comprising:
a shape/residual stress immediately after the springback acquisition step of 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 (Minote: para [0054], “The springback analyzing unit 15 acquires shape
information, a temperature distribution, a stress distribution, a strain distribution, and the like of the press-formed product after springback by performing a springback analysis of the press-forming metallic sheet based on the information acquired by the press forming analyzing unit 13”; para [0056], “The cooling stress analyzing unit 17 can then acquire the residual stress thus accumulated as a stress distribution”);
a residual stress relaxation/reduction setting step of setting a value of a residual stress relaxed and reduced from the acquired residual stress to all bent portions or a part of the bent portions in the press formed part immediately after the springback (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. When the deformation value is high, the springback analyzing unit 15 determines that the springback has increased, and when the deformation value is low, the springback analyzing unit 15 determines that the springback has been reduced.”);
Minote does not teach but Miyagi does teach:
a shape analysis step of determining a shape in which moments of force are balanced for the press formed part in which the value of the residual stress relaxed and reduced in the bent portions is set (Miyagi: para [0107], “The springback amount was 3.75 degrees with the moment force component of, for example, the area 1101 being set to zero” ).
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 (directed to shape change prediction) and Miyagi (directed to balancing moments of force) and arrived at shape change prediction with balancing moments of force. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for “analyzing a cause of springback in a formed product that is press-formed from a steel plate or other metal plates into parts of automobiles or household appliances” (Miyagi: para [0001]).
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150039247 A1 (“Minote”) in view of US 20110246150 A1 (“Miyagi”), further in view of US 20100005845 A1 (“Yoshida”).
Regarding claim 2, Minote and Miyagi do not teach but Yoshida does teach:
The shape change prediction method for a press formed part according to claim 1, wherein the bent portions are punch shoulders configured to connect a top portion and side wall portions in the press formed part including the top portion and the side wall portions (Yoshida: para [0151], “Here, if calculating the maximum curvature of each element and displaying blank elements with a curvature of over a certain threshold value, it becomes possible to judge and separate locations other than the punch shoulder R or die shoulder R (web, vertical walls, flanges) as unconnected separate regions”; paras [0150], [0153], [0156], [0266]).
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 and Miyagi (directed to shape change prediction) and Yoshida (directed to punch shoulders) and arrived at shape change prediction including punch shoulders. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “using numerical analysis to identify a location becoming a cause of occurrence of springback of a press formed product and numerically analyzing a property of that identified location so as to efficiently and economically shorten the time for studying a method of forming a formed member” (Yoshida: para [0012]).
Regarding claim 3, Minote and Miyagi do not teach but Yoshida does teach:
The shape change prediction method for a press formed part according to claim 1, wherein the bent portions are punch shoulders configured to connect a top portion and side wall portions in the press formed part including the top portion, the side wall portions, and flange portions, and/or die shoulders configured to connect the side wall portions and the flange portions (Yoshida: para [0151], “Here, if calculating the maximum curvature of each element and displaying blank elements with a curvature of over a certain threshold value, it becomes possible to judge and separate locations other than the punch shoulder R or die shoulder R (web, vertical walls, flanges) as unconnected separate regions”; paras [0150], [0153], [0156], [0266]).
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 and Miyagi (directed to shape change prediction) and Yoshida (directed to punch shoulders) and arrived at shape change prediction including punch shoulders. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “using numerical analysis to identify a location becoming a cause of occurrence of springback of a press formed product and numerically analyzing a property of that identified location so as to efficiently and economically shorten the time for studying a method of forming a formed member” (Yoshida: para [0012]).
Regarding claim 4, Minote and Miyagi do not teach but Yoshida does teach:
The shape change prediction method for a press formed part according to claim1, 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 (Yoshida: para [0268], “The forming conditions used were data of high strength steel sheet having, as properties of the metal plate, a sheet thickness of 1.6 mm and a tensile strength of the 780 MPa class.”).
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 and Miyagi (directed to shape change prediction) and Yoshida (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 “using numerical analysis to identify a location becoming a cause of occurrence of springback of a press formed product and numerically analyzing a property of that identified location so as to efficiently and economically shorten the time for studying a method of forming a formed member” (Yoshida: para [0012]).
Regarding claim 5, Minote and Miyagi do not teach but Yoshida does teach:
The shape change prediction method for a press formed part according to claim 2, 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 (Yoshida: para [0268], “The forming conditions used were data of high strength steel sheet having, as properties of the metal plate, a sheet thickness of 1.6 mm and a tensile strength of the 780 MPa class.”).
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 and Miyagi (directed to shape change prediction) and Yoshida (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 “using numerical analysis to identify a location becoming a cause of occurrence of springback of a press formed product and numerically analyzing a property of that identified location so as to efficiently and economically shorten the time for studying a method of forming a formed member” (Yoshida: para [0012]).
Regarding claim 6, Minote and Miyagi do not teach but Yoshida does teach:
The shape change prediction method for a press formed part according to claim 3, 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 (Yoshida: para [0268], “The forming conditions used were data of high strength steel sheet having, as properties of the metal plate, a sheet thickness of 1.6 mm and a tensile strength of the 780 MPa class.”).
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 and Miyagi (directed to shape change prediction) and Yoshida (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 “using numerical analysis to identify a location becoming a cause of occurrence of springback of a press formed product and numerically analyzing a property of that identified location so as to efficiently and economically shorten the time for studying a method of forming a formed member” (Yoshida: para [0012]).
Additional References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and are cited in the attached PTOL-892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NITHYA J. MOLL whose telephone number is (571)270-1003. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. 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.
/NITHYA J. MOLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights