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 .
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-22 are presented for examination based on the amended claims in the application filed on December 19, 2025. Claims 2 and 12 have been cancelled by the applicant.
Claim 21-22 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.
Claim 21-22 is 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. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, that has not been integrated into practical application.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0297076 A1 Watanabe, Yuko [herein “Watanabe”] in view of Chung, Yun Chan. “Development of a geometric modeling tool for rectangular drawbeads in draw dies.” Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 27, no. 8 (2013): 2401-2407 [herein “Chung”].
This action is made Final.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed December 19, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-22 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed September 23, 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show clearly delineate the plurality of parameters and bead geometry data as described in the specification, e.g., θ, R2, R3, R4, R5, and R6 in FIG. 3, and e.g., C3, C7, C6, C1, C6, T1, and T2 in FIG. 5, respectively. In Fig. 3, radial arcs should be used to describe the parameters (θ, R2, R3, R4, R5, and R6) that signify and bound the radii to specific region. In Fig. 5, a legend should be used to delineated the bead geometry data (C3, C7, C6, C1, C6, T1, and T2) in the drawing and bound each point or area to a specific location or region, respectively. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. See MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, “including each of each the punch radius” in Ln. 10-11 should be “a tooth surface” and “each of the punch radius”. Claims 11 and 21, having similar limitations of claim 1, are also objected. Claims 3-10, 13-20, and 22 are also objected to for incorporating the deficiency of its dependent claims 1, 11, and 21, respectively.
Claim 1, which cites “the geometry data” in Ln. 19, is improper because there has been no previous recitation of “the geometry data”. For the purpose of examination, “the geometry data” will be interpreted as “the bead geometry data”. Claims 11 and 21, having similar limitations of claim 1, are also objected. Claims 3-10, 13-20, and 22 are also objected to for incorporating the deficiency of its dependent claims 1, 11, and 21, respectively.
Claim 5, which cites “the punch side radius, the bead fillet radius, the die fillet radius, and the die dept” in Ln. 3-4, is improper because there has been no previous recitation of “the punch side radius, the bead fillet radius, the die fillet radius, and the die dept”. For the purpose of examination, “the punch side radius, the bead fillet radius, the die fillet radius, and the die dept” will be interpreted as “a punch side radius, a bead fillet radius, a die fillet radius, and a die dept”.
Claim 15, which recites “a punch radius” in Ln. 2, is improper because there is a previous recitation “a punch radius” in claim 11. For the purpose of examination, “a punch radius” will be interpreted as “the punch radius” to properly refer back to the previous recitation.
Claim 21, which cites “the bead geometry data” in Ln. 22, is improper because there has been no previous recitation of “the bead geometry data”. For the purpose of examination, “the bead geometry data” will be interpreted as “the bead geometry”. Claim 22 is also objected to for incorporating the deficiency of its dependent claim 21.
Claim 22, which cites “the geometry data” in Ln. 2, is improper because there has been no previous recitation of “the geometry data”. For the purpose of examination, “the geometry data” will be interpreted as “the bead geometry”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Regarding claim 21, such claim limitation is the “sheet metal component”. Claim 22 will also be interpreted based on its claim dependency.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
In Claim 21, “a sheet metal component configured to produce one or more body panels of a vehicle”. There is no corresponding structure in the discloser for performing the claimed producing of body panels of a vehicle. Para. 0002, “Manufacturing systems utilize sheet metal to produce one or more body panels of a vehicle” merely describes that sheet metal is used to produce a body panel of a vehicle, but there is no mention of a “sheet metal component” nor its ability to create body panels. Therefore, the disclosure is devoid of any clear structure that performs the function in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 21-22 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.
Claim 21 limitation “a sheet metal component configured to produce one or more body panels of a vehicle” invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph (see MPEP § 2181). Claim 22, which is dependent on claim 21, is similarly rejected.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21-22 is 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. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 21, the original disclosure lacks structure for “a sheet metal component configured to produce one or more body panels of a vehicle” and does not disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the respective claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph (see MPEP § 2181). Claim 22, being dependent on claim 21, is similarly rejected.
Therefore, to resolve both the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), the applicant may:
Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph;
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a));
Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or
Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR § 1.75(d) and MPEP § 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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, 3-11, and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, that has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1:
Claims 1 and 3-11 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of a process; claims 11 and 13-20 are directed to a system and fall within the statutory category of a machine; and claims 21-22 are directed to a system and fall within the statutory category of a machine. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 11, and 21: The limitations of “computing bead tool data for the punch and the die of the desired bead tool based on each of the plurality of parameters, including each of each the punch radius, the punch height, the punch side wall angle, the punch bottom fillet radius, the punch length, the punch tail length, the punch tail radius, and the punch tail bottom fillet radius” and “generating bead geometry data based on the selection of the bead tool data”, as drafted, is an operation that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating geometry of a punch and die of a bead tool can be conducted using given parameters and geometry equations such as the Pythagorean theorem (the equation of the Pythagorean theorem can be found at https://byjus.com/maths/distance-between-two-points-3d/, and see Para 0047, “the design and visualization module 200 processes the user input data 208 to produce tool geometry values. For example, twelve independent variables are used to parameterize the geometries of beading punches and dies of various tool configurations based on mathematical models using geometric elements such as arcs, straight lines, surfaces, and their relevant positions. As can be appreciated, more or fewer variables may be used to parameterize the geometries in various embodiments. The design and visualization module 200 generates the tool geometry data 210 that includes the tool geometry values”), and calculating the distance from the bottom of a metal sheet to the top of the bead punch to determine bead geometry data based on the selection of the bead tool that was computed can be conducted using geometry equations such as the Pythagorean theorem (see Para 0052 for the determined equations based on the Pythagorean theorem, and the equation of the Pythagorean theorem can be found at https://byjus.com/maths/distance-between-two-points-3d/).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic operation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 1, 11, and 21: The limitations of “computing bead tool data for the punch and the die of the desired bead tool based on each of the plurality of parameters, including each of each the punch radius, the punch height, the punch side wall angle, the punch bottom fillet radius, the punch length, the punch tail length, the punch tail radius, and the punch tail bottom fillet radius” and “generating bead geometry data based on the selection and the bead tool data associated with the selection”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person select can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper a bead tool that contains the provided a plurality of parameters of a punch and die to determine the dimensions of the punch and die of bead tool using simple geometry equations, and a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper the dimensions of the bead created by a selected bead tool that contains the determined dimensions of the punch and the die of the bead tool using simple geometry equations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Therefore, yes, claims 1, 11, and 21 recite judicial exceptions. The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 11, and 21: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
“by a processor”, “A system for designing a manufacturing system, the system comprising: a non-transitory computer readable medium”, “a processor coupled to the non-transitory computer readable medium”, and “A manufacturing system” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broadest reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements,
“a sheet metal component configured to produce one or more body panels of a vehicle; a beading tool comprising both of a punch tie and a die that are configured to generate a plurality of beads in the sheet metal component, including based on a bead geometry that is generated” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application, and
“storing, in a datastore, a library of bead tool data associated with a plurality of bead tools”, “receiving, by a processor, a plurality of parameters associated with at least one of a punch and a die of a desired bead tool, wherein the plurality of parameters include each of the following: a punch radius, a punch height, a punch side wall angle, a punch bottom fillet radius, a punch length, a punch tail length, a punch tail radius, and a punch tail bottom fillet radius”, “providing, by the processor, a subset of bead tool data from the library of bead tool data”, “receiving, by the processor, a selection of bead tool data from the subset of bead tool data and the computed bead tool data”, and “transmitting the geometry data to a user, via a transceiver in accordance with instructions provided by the processor” which are merely recitations of insignificant extra-solution data storing, data gathering, and data outputting activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. The insignificant extra-solution activities are further addressed below under step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 11, and 21 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 11, and 21: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 11, and 21 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, they recite an additional limitation of “wherein the plurality of parameters further include each of a die fillet radius, a die opening width, a die depth, and a die inner fillet radius” and “wherein the plurality of parameters further include each of a die fillet radius, a die opening width”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating geometry of a punch and die of a bead tool can be conducted using given parameters of a punch and a die and using geometry equations such as the Pythagorean theorem (the equation of the Pythagorean theorem can be found at https://byjus.com/maths/distance-between-two-points-3d/, and see Para 0047, “the design and visualization module 200 processes the user input data 208 to produce tool geometry values. For example, twelve independent variables are used to parameterize the geometries of beading punches and dies of various tool configurations based on mathematical models using geometric elements such as arcs, straight lines, surfaces, and their relevant positions. As can be appreciated, more or fewer variables may be used to parameterize the geometries in various embodiments. The design and visualization module 200 generates the tool geometry data 210 that includes the tool geometry values”).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 3 and 13, they recite an additional limitation of “wherein the plurality of parameters further include each of a die fillet radius, a die opening width, a die depth, and a die inner fillet radius” and “wherein the plurality of parameters further include each of a die fillet radius, a die opening width”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person select can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper a bead tool that contains the provided parameters of a punch and die to determine the dimensions of the punch and die of bead tool using simple geometry equations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, they recite an additional element recitation of “wherein the library of bead tool data is stored based on material and thickness” which is merely an insignificant extra-solution data storing activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”). Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 4 and 14 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, they recite an additional element recitation of “wherein the library of bead tool data comprises, for each bead tool, each of the following: a nominal thickness, the punch radius, the punch side radius, the bead fillet radius, the die fillet radius, and the die depth” which is merely an insignificant extra-solution data storing activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”). Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 5 and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, they recite an additional limitation of “wherein the bead geometry data includes each of the following: a bead depth, a bead radius, and a bead fillet radius”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating a radius of a bead to determine bead geometry data can be conducted using geometry equations such as the Pythagorean theorem (see Para 0052 for the determined equations based on the Pythagorean theorem, and the equation of the Pythagorean theorem can be found at https://byjus.com/maths/distance-between-two-points-3d/)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 6 and 16, they recite an additional limitation of “wherein the bead geometry data includes each of the following: a bead depth, a bead radius, and a bead fillet radius”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper the dimensions of the bead created by a selected bead tool that contains the determined dimensions of the punch and the die of the bead tool using simple geometry equations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, they recite an additional limitation of “wherein the bead geometry data includes each of the following: sheet top segment conforming to punch top data, sheet bottom segment conforming to punch top data, sheet top segment conforming to die fillet data, sheet bottom segment conforming to die fillet data, flat sheet top surface segment data, and flat sheet bottom segment surface data”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the distance from the bottom of a metal sheet to the top of the bead punch to determine bead geometry data based on the selection of the bead tool that was computed can be conducted using geometry equations such as the Pythagorean theorem (see Para 0052 for the determined equations based on the Pythagorean theorem, and the equation of the Pythagorean theorem can be found at https://byjus.com/maths/distance-between-two-points-3d/, and calculating where the sheet top and bottom conform to the punch top and die fillet can be determined using the its location before the pressing action and its location after the pressing action and the thickness of the metal sheet.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 7 and 17, they recite an additional limitation of “wherein the bead geometry data includes each of the following: sheet top segment conforming to punch top data, sheet bottom segment conforming to punch top data, sheet top segment conforming to die fillet data, sheet bottom segment conforming to die fillet data, flat sheet top surface segment data, and flat sheet bottom segment surface data”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper the distance from the bottom of a metal sheet to the top of the bead punch to determine bead geometry data for a bead created by a selected bead tool that contains the determined dimensions of the punch and the die of the bead tool using simple geometry equations, a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper the location when the sheet top and bottom conform to the punch top and die fillet can be determined using the its location before the pressing action and its location after the pressing action and the thickness of the metal sheet.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, they recite an additional limitation of “generating visualization output data based on the computed bead tool data”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a picture of the die and punch of the bead tool based on the computed bead tool measurements.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 8 and 18, they recite additional element recitations of “wherein the visualization output data includes both an object file and a mesh file” and “wherein the processor is further configured to” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 8 and 18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, they recite an additional limitation of “wherein the computing the bead tool data is based on at least one of lines, arcs, surfaces, and relative positions of each of the following at least one of lines, arcs, and surfaces”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating geometry of a punch and die of a bead tool can be conducted using given line and arc parameters such as a punch radius, a die opening width, and their respective positions along with geometry equations such as the Pythagorean theorem (the equation of the Pythagorean theorem can be found at https://byjus.com/maths/distance-between-two-points-3d/, and see Para 0047, “the design and visualization module 200 processes the user input data 208 to produce tool geometry values. For example, twelve independent variables are used to parameterize the geometries of beading punches and dies of various tool configurations based on mathematical models using geometric elements such as arcs, straight lines, surfaces, and their relevant positions. As can be appreciated, more or fewer variables may be used to parameterize the geometries in various embodiments. The design and visualization module 200 generates the tool geometry data 210 that includes the tool geometry values”).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 9 and 19, they recite an additional limitation of “wherein the computing the bead tool data is based on at least one of lines, arcs, surfaces, and relative positions of each of the following at least one of lines, arcs, and surfaces”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person select can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper the geometry of a punch and die of a bead tool that contains the given line, arc, and surface of the bead and their respective positions along using simple geometry equations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 9 and 19, they recite an additional element recitation of “wherein the processor is further configured to” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 8 and 18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, they recite additional element recitations of “wherein both the receiving the plurality of parameters and the receiving the selection is based on user input generated based on a user interacting with a user interface” which is merely an insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and/or a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further the following additional element, “wherein the processor is further configured to receive at least one of both the plurality of parameters and the selection based on user input generated based on a user interacting with a user interface” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”). Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 10 and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 22, is recites an additional element recitation of “a transceiver couple to the processor and configured to transmit the geometry data to the user in accordance with the instructions provided by the processor” which is merely an insignificant extra-solution data outputting activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and/or a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”). Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus this claim is directed to the judicial exception as is has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 22 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Therefore, having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, that has not been integrated into a practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 3-10, 13-20, and 22 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their dependent claims 1, 11, and 21, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims 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.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0297076 A1 Watanabe, Yuko [herein “Watanabe”] in view of Chung, Yun Chan. “Development of a geometric modeling tool for rectangular drawbeads in draw dies.” Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 27, no. 8 (2013): 2401-2407 [herein “Chung”].
As per claim 1, Watanabe teaches “A method for designing a bead tool and a bead of a manufacturing system”. (Abstract, “The present application automatically creates a press die shape corresponding to various kinds of pressing methods and product shapes using a part processing method data relating to press forming of ordinary parts” [method for design a bead tool shape]. Para. 0002, “panel parts for forming various kinds of bodies of cars or the like are press formed parts manufactured by pressing metal plates using press dies” [designing a bead of a manufacturing system]. Para. 0308-0309, “Next, the press die shape for forming the product is created according to the determined pressing method and the press die shape type of the referencing part (Step S28). Finally, the draw bead is set to created press die shape” [and a bead]. Further see the Abstract and Para. 0002-0008 and 0308-309. The examiner has interpreted that automatically creating a press die shape to form a draw bead for manufacturing autobody panel as a method for designing a bead tool and a bead of a manufacturing system.)
Watanabe teaches “storing, in a datastore, a library of bead tool data associated with a plurality of bead tools”. (Para. 0192, “The storing apparatus 12 is mainly configured with a program storing portion 12A, a product data storing portion 12B, a part processing method data storing portion 12C, a press die model data storing portion 12D and a blank model data storing portion 12E.” [e.g., in, a database, a library of bead tool data]. Para. 0196, “As illustrated in FIG. 7, the press die model data storing portion 12D includes data storing portions 12D1 to 12D8 which respectively store a press die shape model data DT301, a pressing direction data DT302, a blank holder surface data DT303, a two dimensional punch opening line data DT304, a three dimensional punch opening line data DT305, a feature point data DT306, an addendum cross-sectional plane data DT307 and a draw bead data DT308, which configure a press die data DT300” [storing a library of bead tool data]. Para. 0255, “With referring to FIGS. 21 to 24, there are described four kinds of pressing methods to which the above mentioned system for automatically creating a press die shape is applied.” FIGS. 21 to 24 show the variety of tools and configurations for pressing beads, e.g., associated with a plurality of bead tools. Further see Para. 0192-0196 and 0255. The examiner has interpreted that using a storing apparatus to store press die shape model data, pressing direction data, blank holder surface data, and punching opening data for different kinds of pressing methods as storing, in a datastore, a library of bead tool data associated with a plurality of bead tools.)
Watanabe teaches “receiving, by a processor, a plurality of parameters associated with both of a punch and a die of a desired bead tool”. (Para. 0233, “the two dimensional punch opening line data DT304 is configured with a parameter such as a line number L . . . , a line type (fillet, circle, straight line), a first end coordinate (XY coordinate), a second end coordinate (XY coordinate), a center coordinate (XY coordinate), a radius R, a stating angle α and an ending angle β.” [e.g., receiving a plurality of parameters associated with at least a punch]. Para. 0227, “The press die shape model data DT301 is a mesh data for structural analysis which is created by normal meshes based on the known press die shape data obtained by various systems, which includes, for example, a press die shape data of various data type that has already been created such as a CAD data designed by an ordinary CAD system, a STL (Standard Triangulated Language) data that is obtained with measurement by a three dimensional measurement system relating to actual press dies. This mesh data shows a model shape of each part that configures the press die (a die, a punch, a blank holder or a pad)” [a punch and a die of a desired bead tool]. Para. 0187, “FIG. 1 illustrates a configuration of a computer which is a main device of the system for automatically creating a press die shape. The computer 100 includes a processing apparatus 11 such as a CPU” [by a processor, for a desired bead tool]. Further see Para. 0227-0233 and 0187. The examiner has interpreted that configuring punch openings data with parameters such as coordinates, a radius, and angles for punch openings and obtaining press dies shape model data to create a press die shape using a central processing unit as receiving, by a processor, a plurality of parameters associated with both of a punch and a die of a desired bead tool.)
Watanabe teaches “wherein the plurality of parameters include each of the following: a punch radius, [a punch height,] a punch side wall angle, a punch bottom fillet radius, a punch length, a punch tail length, a punch tail radius, [and a punch tail bottom fillet radius]”. (Para. 0233, “the two dimensional punch opening line data DT304 is configured with a parameter such as a line number L . . . , a line type (fillet, circle, straight line), a first end coordinate (XY coordinate), a second end coordinate (XY coordinate), a center coordinate (XY coordinate), a radius R, a stating angle α and an ending angle β.” [punch radius]. Para. 0241, “Specifically, as illustrated in FIG. 16, the addendum cross-sectional plane data DT307 is configured with a parameter 1 such as a cross-sectional plane number P . . . , a nodal point number of the product shape outline N . . . , a nodal point number of the three dimensional punch opening line N . . . , a cross-sectional shape type, a fillet radius of the shoulder portion, a parameter 2 such as a wall angle showing the shoulder portion” [a punch side wall angle]. Para. 0400, “If the arranged positions of the addendum cross-sectional planes are the lines n1 to n4 drawn from the CAD border points b1 to b4, as illustrated in FIG. 83(a), sizes Za, Xa of each arranged position are calculated (Step S142). Za means a height from the blank holder surface HS to the CAD border points b1 to b4 in the Z direction, and Xa means a length from the three dimensional punch outline Lp_3d to the CAD border points b1 to b4 in the direction of the average normal line” [a punch length]. Para. 0322, “the elements having the calculated main curvature which is within the range of a punch shoulder R judgement allowable value of the feature shape identification judging parameter of the part processing method data DT200 is extracted as the punch shoulder R fillet portion R” [a punch bottom fillet radius and punch tail radius]. Para. 0341-0343, “At first, if the emboss portion exists, the minus angle occurring portion C of the emboss portion is smoothed (Step S61). Next, it is judged if the minus angle occurring portion C in which the surface direction of the vertical wall portion W to the pressing direction f becomes a minus angle exists or not (Step S62). Next, in Step S62, if it is judged such that the minus angle occurring portion C exists, as illustrated in FIG. 57, the pressing direction f created by tilting the pressing direction f by an adjusting angle Δθ is set as the pressing direction of this press forming (Step S63).” Fig. 57 shows that the minus angle occurring portion C of the emboss is the punch tail length at angle, e.g., a punch tail radius. Further see Para. 0233, 0241, 0322, 0342-0343, and 0400. The examiner has interpreted that configuring punch opening line data with parameters such as a radius, wall angle, length of punch outline, elements having a punch shoulder fillet portion of allowable value and occurring portion of the emboss portion created by an angle as wherein the plurality of parameters include each of the following: a punch radius, a punch side wall angle, a punch bottom fillet radius, a punch length, a punch tail length, and a punch tail radius.)
Watanabe teaches “computing, by the processor, bead tool data for the punch and the die of the desired bead tool based on each of plurality of parameters including each of each the punch radius, [the punch height,] the punch side wall angle, the punch bottom fillet radius, the punch length, the punch tail length, the punch tail radius, [and the punch tail bottom fillet radius]”. (Para. 0282, “the press die model data creating portion 300 creates the press die data DT300” [computing bead tool data for the die]. Para. 0233, “the two dimensional punch opening line data DT304 is configured with a parameter such as a line number L . . . , a line type (fillet, circle, straight line), a first end coordinate (XY coordinate), a second end coordinate (XY coordinate), a center coordinate (XY coordinate), a radius R, a stating angle α and an ending angle β.” [based on the plurality of parameters]. Para. 0227, “The press die shape model data DT301 is a mesh data for structural analysis which is created by normal meshes based on the known press die shape data obtained by various systems, which includes, for example, a press die shape data of various data type that has already been created such as a CAD data designed by an ordinary CAD system, a STL (Standard Triangulated Language) data that is obtained with measurement by a three dimensional measurement system relating to actual press dies. This mesh data shows a model shape of each part that configures the press die (a die, a punch, a blank holder or a pad)” [for the punch and the die of the desired bead tool]. Para. 0187, “FIG. 1 illustrates a configuration of a computer which is a main device of the system for automatically creating a press die shape. The computer 100 includes a processing apparatus 11 such as a CPU” [by the processor]. Further evidence for the punch radius, punch side wall angle, punch bottom fillet radius, punch length, punch tail length, and punch tail radius is shown above in Para. 0233, 0241, 0322, 0342-0343, and 0400. Further see Para. 0227-0233, 0282, and 0187. The examiner has interpreted that creating press die data and model shape for the die and punch that is configured with punch openings data by parameters such as a radius, wall angle, length of punch outline, punch shoulder fillet portion of allowable value and occurring portion of the emboss portion created by an angle to create a press die shape using a central processing unit as computing, by the processor, bead tool data for the punch and the die of the desired bead tool based on each of plurality of parameters including each of each the punch radius, the punch side wall angle, the punch bottom fillet radius, the punch length, the punch tail length, and the punch tail radius.)
Watanabe teaches “providing, by the processor, a subset of bead tool data from the library of bead tool data”. (Para. 0192, “The storing apparatus 12 is mainly configured with a program storing portion 12A, a product data storing portion 12B, a part processing method data storing portion 12C, a press die model data storing portion 12D and a blank model data storing portion 12E.” [library of bead tool data]. Para. 0195, “the part processing method data storing portion 12C includes data storing portions 12C1 to 12C8 which respectively store a registered key data DT201, a pressing direction setting data DT202, a feature shape identification determining data DT203, a pressing method data DT204, a press forming condition data DT205, a draw bead information data DT206, a press die shape creation parameter data DT207 and a blank line creation parameter data DT208, which configure a part processing method data DT200” [a subset of the bead tool data]. Para. 0292, “if it is judged such that a relevant part exists, narrowing down from the relevant part is performed with using a material or a thickness which is the same as or similar to that of the product as a searching key in the registered key of the part processing method data DT200”. Para. 0293, “Finally, using the narrowed down relevant part as a referencing part” [providing the subset of bead tool data]. Furthermore, Para. 0297, “the part processing method data DT200 which is necessary at creating the press model data DT300 of the product at the next Step S3 may have been obtained” [e.g., a subset of tool data]. Para. 0187, “FIG. 1 illustrates a configuration of a computer which is a main device of the system for automatically creating a press die shape. The computer 100 includes a processing apparatus 11 such as a CPU” [by the processor]. Further see Para. 0187, 0192-0195, 0292-0293, 0296-0297. The examiner has interpreted that narrowing down the relevant part using a material or a thickness based on the part processing method data of the storing apparatus as the referencing part which is used to create the press model data using a central processing unit as providing, by the processor, a subset of bead tool data from the library of bead tool data.)
Watanabe teaches “receiving, by the processor, a selection of bead tool data from the subset of bead tool data and the computed bead tool data”. (Para. 0296, “if it is judged such that a relevant part does not exist, a predetermined part processing method data DT200 is manually input using the input apparatus 13, and then this subroutine is finished. Accordingly, the part processing method data DT200 which is necessary at creating the press model data DT300 of the product at the next Step S3 may have been obtained” [receiving a selection of bead tool data from the subset of bead tool data and the computed bead tool data]. Para. 0187, “FIG. 1 illustrates a configuration of a computer which is a main device of the system for automatically creating a press die shape. The computer 100 includes a processing apparatus 11 such as a CPU” [by the processor]. Further see Para. 0187, 0192-0195, 0292-0293, 0296-0297. The examiner has interpreted that obtaining the part processing method data for creating the press model data using a central processing unit as receiving, by the processor, a selection of bead tool data from the subset of bead tool data and the computed bead tool data.)
Watanabe teaches “generating, by the processor, bead geometry data based on the selection of the bead tool data.” (Para. 0308-0309, “Next, the press die shape for forming the product is created according to the determined pressing method and the press die shape type of the referencing part (Step S28). Finally, the draw bead is set to created press die shape” [generating bead based on the selection of bead tool data]. Para. 0422, “the draw bead shape type bead1 to bead8 (circle/rectangular/step), the cross-sectional shape parameter (basic position, edge radius, center radius, depth or the like) is determined” [generating bead geometry data]. Para. 0187, “FIG. 1 illustrates a configuration of a computer which is a main device of the system for automatically creating a press die shape. The computer 100 includes a processing apparatus 11 such as a CPU” [by the processor]. Further see Para. 0187, 0308-0309 and 0422. The examiner has interpreted that determining the draw bead that includes cross-sectional shape parameters of positions, radii, and depth from the formed press die shape using the determined pressing method and shape type of the referenced part using a central processing unit as generating, by the processor, bead geometry data based on the selection of the bead tool data.)
Watanabe teaches “transmitting the geometry data to a user, via a transceiver in accordance with instructions provided by the processor”. (Para. 0187, “FIG. 1 illustrates a configuration of a computer which is a main device of the system for automatically creating a press die shape. The computer 100 includes a processing apparatus 11 such as a CPU”. Para. 0253, “A searching window, an input window, an edit window, an analysis result or the like is shown in the output apparatus 14. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 19, a searching condition and a searching result are shown in the searching window, and as illustrated in FIG. 20, a three dimensional shape of the pressed product is graphically shown as classified in color according to a reducing rate of the plate thickness, or a corresponding plastic strain as a result of a press forming simulation in the searching result” [transmitting the geometry data to a user]. Fig. 1 shows that the processing apparatus 11 is in communication with the output apparatus, e.g., via a transceiver in accordance with instructions provided by the processor. Further see Para. 0187 and 0253. The examiner has interpreted that using a computer processing apparatus CPU to show the result of the three dimensional shape of the pressed product graphically the output apparatus as transmitting the geometry data to a user, via a transceiver in accordance with instructions provided by the processor.)
Watanabe does not teach “wherein the plurality of parameters include each of the following: a punch height and a punch tail bottom fillet radius.”
However, in the same field of endeavor namely modeling bead tool and bead geometry data, Chung teaches “wherein the plurality of parameters include each of the following: a punch height and a punch tail bottom fillet radius”. (Pg. 2402 Sect. 1 “For the geometric modeling process, the geometric parameters of drawbeads are reviewed and clarified from the viewpoint of geometric modeling. The presented geometric modeling process helps provides consistency to the geometric model for every engineer” [receiving a plurality of parameters associated with both of a punch and a die of a desired bead tool]. Pg. 2402 Sect. 2, “Fig. 3 shows the geometric parameters of a rectangular drawbead that consists of a male bead and a contra-bead” [parameters of a punch and die]. “The basic parameters are the width, height, and shoulder radius of the male bead, and the exit radius of the contra-bead” [a punch height and a punch tail bottom fillet radius]. “The four basic parameters completely define the sectional geometry of a rectangular drawbead” [computing bead tool data for the punch and the die of the desired bead tool based on each of the plurality of parameters]. Furthermore, Pg. 2402 Sect. 2 “First, bead curves that guide the drawbead should be sampled into points. Bead curves are the centers of drawbeads, and the curves are located on the binder surfaces since they are created by projection onto these surfaces” [e.g., computing bead tool data for the punch and the die of the desired bead tool based on each of the plurality of parameters]. Further see Sect. 1-2. The examiner has interpreted that revieing geometric parameters for drawbeads that consists of a male bead and a contra-bead such as height and shoulder radius of the male bead that define the sectional geometry of the rectangular drawbead and create a 3D geometry of drawbeads and bead curves as wherein the plurality of parameters include each of the following: a punch height and a punch tail bottom fillet radius. )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “wherein the plurality of parameters include each of the following: a punch height and a punch tail bottom fillet radius” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Chung, into that of Watanabe because this modification including additional parameters of punch height and a punch tail bottom fillet radius for the advantageous purpose of creating more accurate and optimum automatic 3-D geometric modeling process (Chung Pg. 2403 Sect. 2.2 and Pg. 2406 Sect. 5). Further motivation to combine be that Watanabe and Chung are analogous art to the current claim are directed to modeling bead tool and bead geometry data.
As per claim 3, Watanabe teaches “wherein the plurality of parameters further include each of a die fillet radius, [a die opening width, a die depth, and a die inner fillet radius].” (Para. 0222, “press die shape creation parameter data DT207 is configured with a parameter such as a press die shape type, a blank holder surface parameter (a blank holder surface type (a plat surface, a curved surface or a referencing part (a ceiling plate portion or a flange portion)), a forming position difference designation value, a curved surface type (a column or a cone), a curved surface defining parameter and an addendum shape parameter (a two dimensional punch opening line offset distance, an addendum cross-sectional shape parameter of a pad portion, a flange portion and a vertical wall portion”. Para. 0241, “The addendum cross-sectional plane data DT307 is a data showing a cross-sectional shape of the addendum cross-sectional plane including each feature point as the end points. Specifically, as illustrated in FIG. 16, the addendum cross-sectional plane data DT307 is configured with a parameter 1 such as a cross-sectional plane number P . . . , a nodal point number of the product shape outline N . . . , a nodal point number of the three dimensional punch opening line N . . . , a cross-sectional shape type, a fillet radius of the shoulder portion, a parameter 2 such as a wall angle showing the shoulder portion, or the like” [wherein the plurality of parameters further include a die fillet radius]. Further see Para. 0222 and 0241. The examiner has interpreted that configuring the press die shape creation parameter data with an addendum cross-sectional shape parameter configured with a fillet radius as wherein the plurality of parameters further include a die fillet radius.)
Watanabe does not specifically teach “wherein the plurality of parameters further include each of a die opening width, a die depth, and a die inner fillet radius.”
However, Chung teaches “wherein the plurality of parameters further include each of a die opening width, a die depth, and a die inner fillet radius”. (Pg. 2402 Sect. 1 “For the geometric modeling process, the geometric parameters of drawbeads are reviewed and clarified from the viewpoint of geometric modeling. The presented geometric modeling process helps provides consistency to the geometric model for every engineer” [receiving a plurality of parameters associated with both of a punch and a die of a desired bead tool]. Pg. 2402 Sect. 2, “Fig. 3 shows the geometric parameters of a rectangular drawbead that consists of a male bead and a contra-bead” [parameters of a punch and die]. “The basic parameters are the width, height, and shoulder radius of the male bead, and the exit radius of the contra-bead” [a die inner fillet radius]. “The four basic parameters completely define the sectional geometry of a rectangular drawbead” [computing bead tool data for the punch and the die of the desired bead tool based on each of the plurality of parameters]. Furthermore, Pg. 2402 Sect. 2 “First, bead curves that guide the drawbead should be sampled into points. Bead curves are the centers of drawbeads, and the curves are located on the binder surfaces since they are created by projection onto these surfaces” [e.g., computing bead tool data for the punch and the die of the desired bead tool based on each of the plurality of parameters]. Pg. 2402 Sect. 2, “Let w1 and h1 be the width and height of a male bead, respectively, as shown in Fig. 3. The width and height of the contra-beads are then”. Equation 1 and 2 show the width and height of the contra-bead given from the width and height of a male bead, e.g., receiving a die opening width and a die depth. Further see Sect. 1-2. The examiner has interpreted that revieing geometric parameters for drawbeads that consists of a male bead and a contra-bead such as the height and width of the male bead as well as the exit radius of the contra-bead to determine the width and height of the contra-beads that define the sectional geometry of the rectangular drawbead and create a 3D geometry of drawbeads and bead curves as wherein the plurality of parameters further include each of a die opening width, a die depth, and a die inner fillet radius. )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “wherein the plurality of parameters further include each of a die opening width, a die depth, and a die inner fillet radius” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Chung, into that of Watanabe because this modification including additional parameters of punch height and a punch tail bottom fillet radius for the advantageous purpose of creating more accurate and optimum automatic 3-D geometric modeling process (Chung Pg. 2403 Sect. 2.2 and Pg. 2406 Sect. 5). Further motivation to combine be that Watanabe and Chung are analogous art to the current claim are directed to modeling bead tool and bead geometry data.
As per claim 4, Watanabe teaches “wherein the library of bead tool data is stored based on material and thickness.” (Para. 0192, “The storing apparatus 12 is mainly configured with a program storing portion 12A, a product data storing portion 12B, a part processing method data storing portion 12C, a press die model data storing portion 12D and a blank model data storing portion 12E.” [library of bead tool data]. Para. 0195, “the part processing method data storing portion 12C includes data storing portions 12C1 to 12C8 which respectively store a registered key data DT201, a pressing direction setting data DT202, a feature shape identification determining data DT203, a pressing method data DT204, a press forming condition data DT205, a draw bead information data DT206, a press die shape creation parameter data DT207 and a blank line creation parameter data DT208, which configure a part processing method data DT200” [a subset of the bead tool data in the library]. Para. 0292, “if it is judged such that a relevant part exists, narrowing down from the relevant part is performed with using a material or a thickness which is the same as or similar to that of the product as a searching key in the registered key of the part processing method data DT200” [e.g., wherein the library of bead tool data is stored based on material and thickness]. Further see Para. 0187, 0192-0195, 0292-0293, 0296-0297. The examiner has interpreted that narrowing down the relevant part using a material or a thickness based on the part processing method data of the storing apparatus as wherein the library of bead tool data is stored based on material and thickness.)
As per claim 5, Watanabe teaches “wherein the library of bead tool data comprises, for each bead tool, each of the nominal thickness, the punch radius, the punch side radius, the bead fillet radius, [the die fillet radius, and the die depth].” (Para. 0192, “The storing apparatus 12 is mainly configured with a program storing portion 12A, a product data storing portion 12B, a part processing method data storing portion 12C, a press die model data storing portion 12D and a blank model data storing portion 12E.” [a library of bead tool data]. Para. 0196, “As illustrated in FIG. 7, the press die model data storing portion 12D includes data storing portions 12D1 to 12D8 which respectively store a press die shape model data DT301, a pressing direction data DT302, a blank holder surface data DT303, a two dimensional punch opening line data DT304, a three dimensional punch opening line data DT305, a feature point data DT306, an addendum cross-sectional plane data DT307 and a draw bead data DT308, which configure a press die data DT300” [storing a library of bead tool data comprises bead tool data]. Para. 0255, “With referring to FIGS. 21 to 24, there are described four kinds of pressing methods to which the above mentioned system for automatically creating a press die shape is applied” [for each bead tool]. Para. 0292, “if it is judged such that a relevant part exists, narrowing down from the relevant part is performed with using a material or a thickness which is the same as or similar to that of the product as a searching key in the registered key of the part processing method data DT200” [nominal thickness]. Para. 0233, “the two dimensional punch opening line data DT304 is configured with a parameter such as a line number L . . . , a line type (fillet, circle, straight line), a first end coordinate (XY coordinate), a second end coordinate (XY coordinate), a center coordinate (XY coordinate), a radius R, a stating angle α and an ending angle β.” [a punch radius]. Para. 0241, “Specifically, as illustrated in FIG. 16, the addendum cross-sectional plane data DT307 is configured with a parameter 1 such as a cross-sectional plane number P . . . , a nodal point number of the product shape outline N . . . , a nodal point number of the three dimensional punch opening line N . . . , a cross-sectional shape type, a fillet radius of the shoulder portion, a parameter 2 such as a wall angle showing the shoulder portion” [a punch side radius]. Para. 0422, “the draw bead shape type bead1 to bead8 (circle/rectangular/step), the cross-sectional shape parameter (basic position, edge radius, center radius, depth or the like) is determined” [the bead fillet radius]. Further see Para. 0192-0196, 0233, 0241, 0255, and 0292. The examiner has interpreted that using a storing apparatus to store punching opening data for different kinds of pressing methods where the punch opening line data is configured with a parameter radius, material thickness, a wall angle showing the shoulder portion, and the draw bead that includes cross-sectional shape parameters of center radius as wherein the library of bead tool data comprises, for each bead tool, each of the nominal thickness, the punch radius, the punch side radius, the bead fillet radius.)
Watanabe does not specifically teach “wherein the library of bead tool data comprises, for each bead tool, the die fillet radius and the die depth.”
However, Chung teaches “wherein the library of bead tool data comprises, for each bead tool, the die fillet radius and the die depth”. (Pg. 2402 Sect. 1 “For the geometric modeling process, the geometric parameters of drawbeads are reviewed and clarified from the viewpoint of geometric modeling. The presented geometric modeling process helps provides consistency to the geometric model for every engineer” [e.g., wherein the library of bead tool data comprises, for each bead tool]. Pg. 2402 Sect. 2, “Fig. 3 shows the geometric parameters of a rectangular drawbead that consists of a male bead and a contra-bead” [parameters of a punch and die]. “The basic parameters are the width, height, and shoulder radius of the male bead, and the exit radius of the contra-bead” [a die fillet radius]. “The four basic parameters completely define the sectional geometry of a rectangular drawbead” [computing bead tool data for the punch and the die of the desired bead tool based on each of the plurality of parameters]. Furthermore, Pg. 2402 Sect. 2 “First, bead curves that guide the drawbead should be sampled into points. Bead curves are the centers of drawbeads, and the curves are located on the binder surfaces since they are created by projection onto these surfaces” [e.g., computing bead tool data for the punch and the die of the desired bead tool based on each of the plurality of parameters]. Pg. 2402 Sect. 2, “Let w1 and h1 be the width and height of a male bead, respectively, as shown in Fig. 3. The width and height of the contra-beads are then”. Equation 1 and 2 show the width and height of the contra-bead given from the width and height of a male bead, e.g., a die depth. Further see Sect. 1-2. The examiner has interpreted that revieing geometric parameters for drawbeads that consists of a male bead and a contra-bead such as the height and width of the male bead as well as the exit radius of the contra-bead to determine the width and height of the contra-beads that define the sectional geometry of the rectangular drawbead and create a 3D geometry of drawbeads and bead curves as wherein the library of bead tool data comprises, for each bead tool, the die fillet radius and the die depth.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “wherein the library of bead tool data comprises, for each bead tool, the die fillet radius and the die depth” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Chung, into that of Watanabe because this modification including additional parameters of punch height and a punch tail bottom fillet radius for the advantageous purpose of creating more accurate and optimum automatic 3-D geometric modeling process (Chung Pg. 2403 Sect. 2.2 and Pg. 2406 Sect. 5). Further motivation to combine be that Watanabe and Chung are analogous art to the current claim are directed to modeling bead tool and bead geometry data.
As per claim 6, Watanabe teaches “wherein the bead geometry data includes each of the following of a bead depth, a bead radius, and a bead fillet radius.” (Para. 0308-0309, “Next, the press die shape for forming the product is created according to the determined pressing method and the press die shape type of the referencing part (Step S28). Finally, the draw bead is set to created press die shape” [generating bead data]. Para. 0422, “the draw bead shape type bead1 to bead8 (circle/rectangular/step), the cross-sectional shape parameter (basic position, edge radius, center radius, depth or the like) is determined” [wherein the bead geometry data includes a bead depth and bead radius]. Para. 0422, “the draw bead shape type bead1 to bead8 (circle/rectangular/step), the cross-sectional shape parameter (basic position, edge radius, center radius, depth or the like) is determined” [the bead fillet radius]. Further see Para. 0308-0309 and 0422. The examiner has interpreted that determining the draw bead that includes cross-sectional shape parameters of center radius and depth and depth from the formed press die shape as well as the edge radius of the draw bead as wherein the bead geometry data includes each of the following of a bead depth, a bead radius, and a bead fillet radius.)
As per claim 7, Watanabe teaches “wherein the bead geometry data includes each of the following of sheet top segment conforming to punch top data, sheet bottom segment conforming to punch top data, sheet top segment conforming to die fillet data, sheet bottom segment conforming to die fillet data, flat sheet top surface segment data, and flat sheet bottom segment surface data.” (Para. 0249, “The blank plate thickness data DT402 has a plate thickness of the blank material” [e.g., flat sheet top surface segment data and flat sheet bottom segment surface data]. Para. 0258, “In this forming (bending), a blank material B is placed between the die D and the punch Pn on the condition such that a periphery portion of the blank material B is free (refer to FIG. 21 (a)). Then, the die D moves down to press the blank material B onto the punch Pn, and thereby compressing a center portion of the blank material B into the cavity C (refer to FIG. 21(b)). Accordingly, in this example, the press formed product having a hat-type cross-sectional shape may be obtained (refer to FIG. 21(c))” [forming the bead from the blank, e.g., sheet top segment conforming to punch top data, sheet bottom segment conforming to punch top data, sheet top segment conforming to die fillet data, sheet bottom segment conforming to die fillet data]. Para. 0253, “as illustrated in FIG. 20, a three dimensional shape of the pressed product is graphically shown as classified in color according to a reducing rate of the plate thickness” [wherein the bead geometry data includes at least a thickness, e.g., sheet top segment conforming to punch top data, sheet bottom segment conforming to punch top data, sheet top segment conforming to die fillet data, sheet bottom segment conforming to die fillet data, flat sheet top surface segment data and flat sheet bottom segment surface data]. Fig. 21 shows the blank being pressed into the formed product with is a bead. Furthermore, Para. 0423, “the draw bead information to be set is added to the press die model data DT300 of the created product S” [e.g., product contains the bead]. Further see Para. 0210. 0249, 0253, 0258 and 0398-0401. The examiner has interpreted that having a blank plate thickness which is used to create a formed product of a bead through a press and providing the thicknesses of the pressed product as wherein the bead geometry data includes each of the following of sheet top segment conforming to punch top data, sheet bottom segment conforming to punch top data, sheet top segment conforming to die fillet data, sheet bottom segment conforming to die fillet data, flat sheet top surface segment data, and flat sheet bottom segment surface data.)
As per claim 8, Watanabe teaches “generating visualization output data based on the computed bead tool data, wherein the visualization output data includes both of the following: an object file and a mesh file.” (Para. 0190, “The processing apparatus 11 includes …” “…a press forming simulation portion 700 which performs a press forming simulation based on the created press die model data” [based on the computed bead tool data] “the created blank model data, and the set pressing condition, a result showing portion 800 which shows a result of the simulation using the output apparatus 14” [generating visualization output data]. Para. 253, “A searching window, an input window, an edit window, an analysis result or the like is shown in the output apparatus 14. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 19, a searching condition and a searching result are shown in the searching window, and as illustrated in FIG. 20, a three dimensional shape of the pressed product is graphically shown” [wherein the visualization output data includes at least an object file]. Para. 0202, “The product shape model data DT102 is a data showing a shape of the product that is subject to analysis. Specifically, the product shape model data DT102 is a three dimensional CAD data in file format of IGES, DXF, DWG or the like, which is created with using a three dimensional CAD software, or a mesh data in which an object is dispersed into finite elements according to a CAD data, or the like” [e.g., a mesh file]. Further see Para. 0190, 0202, and 253. The examiner has interpreted that performing a press forming simulation based on the created press die model data and generated mesh data in 3-D CAD software and outputting the result of the simulation on an output apparatus to shown a three dimensional shape of the pressed product graphically as generating visualization output data based on the computed bead tool data, wherein the visualization output data includes both of the following: an object file and a mesh file.)
As per claim 9, Watanabe teaches “wherein the computing the bead tool data is based on at least one of lines, arcs, surfaces, and relative positions of each of the following lines, arcs, and surfaces.” (Para. 0234, “Since the two dimensional punch opening line is considered as to be a closed curved line configured with a plurality of lines, the two dimensional punch opening line data DT304 has, relating to each line, a fillet, a line type showing if a fillet, a circular arc or a straight line” [wherein the computing the bead tool data is based on lines and arcs], “and first and second end point coordinates showing XY coordinates of both ends of line, as well as if the line is a circular arc or a fillet, a center coordinate and a radius R thereof, and a staring angle α and an ending angle β showing phases of the both ends of the line” [and relative positions of the lines and arcs]. Para. 0204, “An overlapped portion of the product shape model and the press die shape model is determined as a product surface portion. All of an outline of the product surface portion is discomposed into a three dimensional dotted line. The product shape outline data DT103 is a data indicating a position of each nodal point configuring the dotted line or the like” [surface and relative position of the surface]. Further see Para. 0204, 0234, and 0418-0420. The examiner has interpreted that configuring the punch opening line with a plurality of lines including a straight line and a circular arc having coordinates for the respective lines and arcs in addition to determine the overlapping portion of the product shape model based on the position as wherein the computing the bead tool data is based on at least one of lines, arcs, surfaces, and relative positions of each of the following lines, arcs, and surfaces.)
As per claim 10, Watanabe teaches “wherein both the receiving the plurality of parameters and the receiving the selection is based on user input generated based on a user interacting with a user interface.” (Para. 0008, an engineer uses CAD data specifying a product shape to design a shape of the formed product configured by a product portion and its peripheral portions which are comprised of an addendum portion and a blank holder portion before trimming, and then designs a die, a punch and the like, which compose a press die so as to follow the shape of the formed product [e.g., wherein the receiving the plurality of parameters is based on user input generated]. Para. 0296, “if it is judged such that a relevant part does not exist, a predetermined part processing method data DT200 is manually input using the input apparatus 13, and then this subroutine is finished. Accordingly, the part processing method data DT200 which is necessary at creating the press model data DT300 of the product at the next Step S3 may have been obtained” [e.g., wherein the receiving the selection is based on user input]. Para. 0010, “in order to deign a press die shape from scratch by using CAD data specifying a product shape, many operations such as creating an adequate surface and adding a fillet on the CAD are required” [e.g., based on a user interacting with a user interface]. Further see Para. 0008-0010. The examiner has interpreted that an engineer that uses CAD data to design a press die shape by an adequate surface and adding a fillet on the CAD to create a press model that processing the selection as wherein both the receiving the plurality of parameters and the receiving the selection is based on user input generated based on a user interacting with a user interface.)
Re Claim 11, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Furthermore, regarding claim 11, Watanabe teaches “A system for designing a manufacturing system, the system comprising: a non-transitory computer readable medium” and “a processor coupled to the non-transitory computer readable medium”. (Abstract, “The present application automatically creates a press die shape corresponding to various kinds of pressing methods and product shapes using a part processing method data relating to press forming of ordinary parts”. Para. 0308-0309, “Next, the press die shape for forming the product is created according to the determined pressing method and the press die shape type of the referencing part (Step S28). Finally, the draw bead is set to created press die shape”. Para. 0002, “panel parts for forming various kinds of bodies of cars or the like are press formed parts manufactured by pressing metal plates using press dies” [e.g., a system for designing a manufacturing system]. Para. 0187, “FIG. 1 illustrates a configuration of a computer which is a main device of the system for automatically creating a press die shape. The computer 100 includes a processing apparatus 11 such as a CPU” [a processor], “a storing apparatus 12 such as a memory and a hard disk” [i.e., a non-transitory computer readable medium]. FIG. 1 shows the processing apparatus 11 is connected to a storing apparatus 12, e.g., the processor coupled to the non-transitory computer readable medium. Further see the Abstract and Para. 0002, 0187, and 0308-309. The examiner has interpreted that automatically creating a press die shape and the corresponding draw bead to manufacture car bodies panels using a computer system having a processing apparatus and storing apparatus in connection together as a system for designing a manufacturing system, the system comprising: a non-transitory computer readable medium and a processor coupled to the non-transitory computer readable medium.)
Re Claim 13, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 3. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3.
Re Claim 14, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 4. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4.
Re Claim 15, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 5. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5.
Re Claim 16, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 6. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6.
Re Claim 17, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 7. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7.
Re Claim 18, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 8. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 8.
Re Claim 19, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 9. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 9.
Re Claim 20, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 10. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 10.
Re Claim 21, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 11. Thus, claim 21 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 11.
Furthermore, regarding claim 21, Watanabe teaches “A manufacturing system comprising: a sheet metal component configured to produce one or more body panels of a vehicle; a beading tool comprising both of a punch tie and a die that are configured to generate a plurality of beads in the sheet metal component, including based on a bead geometry that is generated via a computer system configured for designing the beading tool”. (Abstract, “The present application automatically creates a press die shape corresponding to various kinds of pressing methods and product shapes using a part processing method data relating to press forming of ordinary parts” [a bead tool]. Para. 0256, “This press die has a die D and a punch Pn” [a beading tool comprising both of a punch tie and a die].Para. 0002, “panel parts for forming various kinds of bodies of cars or the like are press formed parts manufactured by pressing metal plates using press dies” [a manufacturing system comprising: a sheet metal component configured to produce one or more body panels of a vehicle configured to generate a plurality of beads in the sheet metal component]. Para. 0308-0309, “Next, the press die shape for forming the product is created according to the determined pressing method and the press die shape type of the referencing part (Step S28). Finally, the draw bead is set to created press die shape” [including based on a bead geometry]. Para. 0187, “FIG. 1 illustrates a configuration of a computer which is a main device of the system for automatically creating a press die shape. The computer 100 includes a processing apparatus 11 such as a CPU” [that is generated via a computer system configured for designing the beading tool]. Further see the Abstract and Para. 0002-0008, 0187, 0256, and 0308-309. The examiner has interpreted that automatically creating a press die shape using a press die that has a die and a punch to designing a draw bead using a computer system to form draw beads in panel parts for manufacturing autobody panels as a method for designing a bead tool and as manufacturing system comprising: a sheet metal component configured to produce one or more body panels of a vehicle; a beading tool comprising both of a punch tie and a die that are configured to generate a plurality of beads in the sheet metal component, including based on a bead geometry that is generated via a computer system configured for designing the beading tool.)
Re Claim 22, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 11. Thus, claim 22 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendment to the drawings should overcome the objections made to the drawings (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 10).
MPEP § 608.02(d) states “Any structural detail that is of sufficient importance to be described should be shown in the drawing” and MPEP § 608.02(b)(I) recites “Examiners should review the drawings for disclosure of the claimed invention and for proper use of reference numerals. Unless applicant is otherwise notified in an Office action, objections to the drawings in a utility or plant application will not be held in abeyance. A request to hold objections to the drawings in abeyance will not be considered a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action (37 CFR 1.135(c) ). Drawing corrections should be made promptly before allowance of the application in order to avoid delays in issuance of the application as a patent or a reduction to any term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(c)(10)”.
As provided in the previous Office Action and in the interview which occurred on December 4, 2025, the examiner has objected to the drawings since the plurality of parameters and bead geometry data as described in the specification, e.g., θ, R2, R3, R4, R5, and R6 in FIG. 3, and e.g., C3, C7, C6, C1, C6, T1, and T2 in FIG. 5, respectively, are not clearly delineated. In Fig. 3, radial arcs should be used to describe the parameters (θ, R2, R3, R4, R5, and R6) that signify and bound the radii to specific region. In Fig. 5, a legend should be used to delineated the bead geometry data (C3, C7, C6, C1, C6, T1, and T2) in the drawing and bound each point or area to a specific location or region, respectively. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing.
Therefore, the examiner has properly identified the drawings do not show the structural details and has objected to the drawings as a result.
Applicant argues that claims 1 and 11 features are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is integrated into a practical application as claim features recite improvements to another technology or technical field (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 11-12).
MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) recites “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); … ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”. MPEP § 2106.05(g) recites “Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting…Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: … Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.
With regards to claims 1 and 11, the additional element of “transmitting the geometry data to a user, via a transceiver in accordance with instructions provided by the processor” has been interpreted as outputting data from the results of the computations, i.e., outputting analysis data to a user using a computer and display or over the internet, which has been defined by MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g) as an insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, or conventional. Therefore, this additional element is an insignificant extra-solution activity as defined and as such evidence is provided in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
Therefore, the examiner has properly identified that the claims recite a feature that is well-understood,
routine, or conventional in the art and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the
feature is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
Applicant argues that claim 21 features are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is integrated into a practical application as claim features apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 11-12).
MPEP § 2106.05(b)(II) recites “Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)”. MPEP § 2106.05(b)(III) recites “Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610, 95 USPQ2d at 1009 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978)), and CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011)”.
With regards to claim 21, the additional element of “a sheet metal component configured to produce one or more body panels of a vehicle; a beading tool comprising both of a punch tie and a die that are configured to generate a plurality of beads in the sheet metal component, including based on a bead geometry that is generated” is merely linking the abstract idea to a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Therefore, this additional element is a field of use/technological environment as defined and as such evidence is provided in MPEP § 2106.05(b) and MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the examiner has properly identified that the claims recite a feature that is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use/technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 12-14, filed December 19, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amended claims, necessitated by the applicant’s amendment, as detailed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang, Zhen, Qiuchong Zhang, Yuqi Liu, and Zhibing Zhang. "A robust and accurate geometric model for automated design of drawbeads in sheet metal forming." Computer-Aided Design 92 (2017): 42-57 teaches a method for automated design of drawbeads using parameters of a punch and die.
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.
Examiner’s Note: The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the reference that applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, the applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for the proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bound of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Simeon P Drapeau whose telephone number is (571)-272-1173. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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.
/SIMEON P DRAPEAU/ Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188