DETAILED ACTION Claims 1- 1 2 have been examined and are pending. Claims 1- 1 2 are rejected ( Non-Final Rejection ). Notice of 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. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDSs) submitted on 11/28/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs have been considered by the examiner. Examiner’s Note: NPL Item No. 15 appears to be a duplicate of NPL Item No. 14. The information disclosure statement filed 11/01/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)( i ) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. Specifically, NPL Cite No. 4 (TW Office Action and Search Report for TW App. No. 111135146, dated September 20, 2023) is not in the English language and does not include a concise explanation of relevance. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Para. [0030] appears to be describing FIG. 3B’s processing stages but does not mention FIG. 3B or provide reference to reference numerals in FIG. 3B showing the stages. Appropriate correction is required. If technically accurate, Examiner suggests the following correction of Para. [0030] of the specification : In the present embodiment, as shown in FIG. 3B, the processing stages from left to right respectively are fast-feeding stage ( including at least between 0 to 1) , forming stage (1 to 2) , holding stage (2 to 3) , demolding stage (3 to 4) and fast-homing stage (4 to 5) . The upper mold 20 does not contact the workpiece 10 at the fast-feeding stage, the demolding stage and the fast-homing stage, but contacts the workpiece 10 at the forming stage and the holding stage, so that each processing stage can match the material requirements and the process requirements, and each subsection of the basic forming curve corresponds to a selected processing curve. Claim Objections Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “A forming method of a processing curve in a stamping process …”. However, it appears that what is intended is “A forming method of forming a processing curve in a stamping process …”. Claims 2-12 would need to be amended to replace “ The forming method …” with “ The method of forming…” . 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. Claims 3, 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. Regarding claim s 3 and 4 , claim 3 recites “calculating a worse strain value when the workpiece has a largest deformation by a cross section method ”. However, it is unclear what value the deformation value is largest among , and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Moreover, Para. [0026] of the specification recites “a worse strain value is obtained according to the strain values of several cross sections of the finished product at different positions” but it is unclear where the current language from claim 3 is provided for in the detailed description of the specification. Claim 4 depend s , directly or indirectly, from rejected claim 3 . Therefore, claim 4 is also rejected under the same rationale since the claim inherit s at least the respective deficiencies of claim 3 , while failing to cure the inherited deficiencies. Regarding claim 1 1 , the term “small” and “high” in claim 11 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “small” and “high” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. 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. Claims 1 -12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over BULLER et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0004225 A1) in view of LUCKEY et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0205394 A1). Regarding claim 1 , BULLER discloses a forming method of a processing curve (generating forming instructions for forming a three-dimensional object … the at least one surface portion has a curvature, Para. [0013] of BULLER ) , comprising: establishing a plurality of processing curves (a pre-formation application enables loading a virtual model of a requested 3D object by importation of and/or opening one of a plurality of file format options, Para. [0236] of BULLER; See also a surface of a (e.g., CAD) virtual model of a 3D object may comprise at least one (e.g., surface) patch … a surface patch may comprise a (e.g., closed) region of a virtual model surface that is defined (e.g., bounded) by one or more curves that form a closed connection, Para. [0237] of BULLER) , and setting an optimization target on the processing curves according to material characteristics of a workpiece, process requirements and a finished product CAD file (one template may be associated with a first manufacturing instruction set that is optimized for fastest manufacturing speed (having a first manufacturing speed), that is analyzed to result in a first object roughness and a first dimensional accuracy (e.g., relative to the virtual model of the requested 3D object) and a second template may be associated with a second manufacturing instruction set that is optimized for lowest surface roughness that is analyzed to result in a second object roughness, a second manufacturing speed, and a second dimensional accuracy relative to the virtual model of the requested 3D object … the user may choose the first or second manufacturing instruction based on the manufacturing speed, surface roughness, and/or dimensional accuracy, Para. [0228] of BULLER ; See also [Examiner’s note: Applicant’s claim 11 appears to indicate that flatness corresponds to an optimization target]; BULLER teaches a geometry may comprise one or more surface geometries of all or a portion of the geometric model of the 3D object … in some embodiments, a selection filter may be specified according to an intersection of one or more geometries on a surface of the geometric model … f or example, a first portion of the geometric model may comprise a positive curvature and a second portion of the geometric model may comprise a negative curvature … surface portion may have a negative, a flat, or a positive curvature … in some embodiments, to derive a measure of intrinsic curvature of a surface an observer may measure (e.g., sum) angles of geometric shape (e.g., a triangle), and compare the measured angles to those of a corresponding Euclidean (e.g., zero curvature) geometric shape, Para. [0131] of BULLER ; See also a template may comprise at least one preset for control of a selected effect with respect to at least a portion of a requested 3D object … f or example, a selected effect for the requested 3D object may comprise ( i ) a material type, (ii) a microstructure (iii) a density, (iv) a surface roughness, (v) a material porosity, (vi) a presence (or absence) of an auxiliary support structure, (vii) a dimensional requirement and/or tolerance, (viii) a rate of formation, with which (e.g., a portion of) the requested 3D object is formed , Para. [0228] of BULLER ; See also a surface of a (e.g., CAD) virtual model of a 3D object may comprise at least one (e.g., surface) patch … a surface patch may comprise a (e.g., closed) region of a virtual model surface that is defined (e.g., bounded) by one or more curves that form a closed connection , Para. [0237] of BULLER ) ; selecting and superimposing at least two of the processing curves to form a basic forming curve, wherein each subsection of the basic forming curve corresponds to a selected processing curve of the processing curves ( selection of the at least one surface portion comprises selecting at least one point on the surface of the geometric model and considering neighboring points on the surface of the geometric model. In some embodiments, the range between upper threshold curvature and/or the lower threshold curvature is with respect to a curvature at the at least one point on the surface , Para. [0012] of BULLER; See also a surface of a (e.g., CAD) virtual model of a 3D object may comprise at least one (e.g., surface) patch … a surface patch may comprise a (e.g., closed) region of a virtual model surface that is defined (e.g., bounded) by one or more curves that form a closed connection , Para. [0237] of BULLER; [Examiner’s note: although Applicant uses the term “superimposing”, based on the drawings ( e.g., FIG. 4A) and specification ( e.g., Para. [0028]) , the “superimposing” appears to correspond to connected/adjacent curves (because template sections 1, 2 and 3 from FIG. 1 are “superimposed” in FIG. 4A based on Para. [0028] of the specification but FIG. 4A shows the “superimposing” appears to just mean adjacent connection) ]) ; and determining whether the selected processing curve in each subsection of the basic forming curve matches the optimization target ([Examiner’s note: Applicant’s claim 11 appears to indicate that flatness corresponds to an optimization target]; BULLER teaches user may select a printing instruction set from a plurality of suggested printing instruction sets … f or example, one template may be associated with a first manufacturing instruction set that is optimized for fastest manufacturing speed (having a first manufacturing speed), that is analyzed to result in a first object roughness and a first dimensional accuracy (e.g., relative to the virtual model of the requested 3D object); and a second template may be associated with a second manufacturing instruction set that is optimized for lowest surface roughness that is analyzed to result in a second object roughness, a second manufacturing speed, and a second dimensional accuracy relative to the virtual model of the requested 3D object , Para. [0228] of BULLER; See also a geometry may comprise one or more surface geometries of all or a portion of the geometric model of the 3D object … i n some embodiments, a selection filter may be specified according to an intersection of one or more geometries on a surface of the geometric model … f or example, a first portion of the geometric model may comprise a positive curvature and a second portion of the geometric model may comprise a negative curvature … surface portion may have a negative, a flat, or a positive curvature … in some embodiments, to derive a measure of intrinsic curvature of a surface an observer may measure (e.g., sum) angles of geometric shape (e.g., a triangle), and compare the measured angles to those of a corresponding Euclidean (e.g., zero curvature) geometric shape, Para. [0131] of BULLER) . BULLER appears to fail to explicitly disclose a stamping process . LUCKEY , however, is in the field of material forming (Para. [000 3 ] of LUCKEY ) and teaches forming method of a processing curve in a stamping process ( superplastic forming offers several advantages over conventional stamping techniques including increased forming strains, zero springback and very low tooling costs … one process for forming a part from a metal sheet using superplastic forming includes using a preform punch to impart an initial generic shape to the metal sheet, Para. [0008] of LUCKEY ). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the curvature material forming method of BULLER to include the stamping /punch-based material forming process in LUCKEY f or the purpose of providing for significantly faster forming times, improved material utilization, uniform thinning and the capability to use lower cost aluminum sheet (Para. [00 41 ] of LUCKEY ). Regarding claim 2 , BULLER as modified by LUCKEY discloses the forming method according to claim 1 (as shown above) , wherein if it is determined that the selected processing curve in each subsection of the basic forming curve does not match the optimization target, the method further comprises: adjusting a node position on the selected processing curve; and outputting a final forming curve matching the optimization target (MPEP 2111.04(II) recites: “[t] he broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim” ; [To avoid the contingent limitation interpretation , Examiner suggests replacing “if” (not required to occur) with “when” or “in response to” (required to occur at least one); See also BULLER teaches the analysis provides data concerning one or more material properties (e.g., porosity, surface roughness, grain structure, internal strain and/or chemical composition) of the object(s) … in some embodiments, the analysis data is compared to requested data … for example, a geometry of the printed object(s) may be compared with the geometry of the requested object(s) … in some embodiments, the analysis data is used (e.g., FIG. 7, 717) to adjust the simulation (e.g., FIG. 7, 710). The adjusted simulation may be used, for example, in formation of subsequent object(s), Para. [0137] of BULLER; [surface roughness is interpreted as corresponding to flatness]; Examiner’s note: Applicant’s claim 11 appears to indicate that flatness corresponds to an optimization target] ). Regarding claim 3 , BULLER as modified by LUCKEY discloses the forming method according to claim 1 (as shown above) , wherein the basic forming curve has a forming stage at which the selected processing curve is optimized ( forming a three-dimensional object … the at least one surface portion has a curvature, Para. [0013] of BULLER; See also one template may be associated with a first manufacturing instruction set that is optimized for fastest manufacturing speed (having a first manufacturing speed), that is analyzed to result in a first object roughness and a first dimensional accuracy (e.g., relative to the virtual model of the requested 3D object) and a second template may be associated with a second manufacturing instruction set that is optimized for lowest surface roughness that is analyzed to result in a second object roughness, a second manufacturing speed, and a second dimensional accuracy relative to the virtual model of the requested 3D object … the user may choose the first or second manufacturing instruction based on the manufacturing speed, surface roughness, and/or dimensional accuracy, Para. [0228] of BULLER; See also [Examiner’s note: Applicant’s claim 11 appears to indicate that flatness corresponds to an optimization target]) , and the optimization of the selected processing curve comprises: calculating a worse strain value ( the analysis provides data concerning one or more material properties including internal strain, Para. [0137] of BULLER; See also critical portion of a 3D object may undergo, in an environment in which it is used, a relatively high induced stress, strain, and/or temperature gradient, Para. [0145] of BULLER; See also metal sheet forming processes are typically limited by the material's ability to be strained past its rupture point, Para. [0005] of LUCKEY) when the workpiece has a largest deformation by a cross section method ( a formed (e.g., printed) portion of the 3D object may (e.g., substantially) deviate from the model of the 3D object during and/or after the forming (e.g., 3D printing), e.g., during and/or after the formation of the hardened material … for example, manufacturing requirements may dictate that a particular dimension of the 3D object is within a specified threshold (e.g., tolerance) … such deviation may comprise a deformation , Para. [0154] of BULLER) ; and obtaining a suitable temperature or a strain rate interval according to the workpiece material to determine whether a rupture strain value of the workpiece is greater than the worse strain value (“to determine whether a rupture strain value …” limitation is not positively recited and is interpreted as intended use ; See also BULLER teaches the critical portion of the 3D object may be formed to have a reduced (e.g., residual) stress and/or strain in at least one direction …r educed may be relative to (e.g., remaining) other portions of the formed 3D object … i n some embodiments, formation of a (e.g., at least one) critical portion of a 3D object comprises annealing , Para. [0145] of BULLER ) . Regarding claim 4 , BULLER as modified by LUCKEY discloses the forming method according to claim 3 (as shown above) , further comprising: setting a plurality of sets of temperature parameters ( the at least one surface portion corresponds with a region of the three-dimensional object that upon formation and during the intended use undergoes a relatively higher induced temperature variation as compared to an induced temperature variation in an adjacent portion (e.g., a remainder) of the three-dimensional object, Para. [0012] of BULLER) and puncher speed parameters ( the blank holder controlling the rate and amount of material drawn over the punch, Para. [0009] of LUCKEY) when the rupture strain value is greater than the worse strain value (the critical portion of the 3D object may be formed to have a reduced (e.g., residual) stress and/or strain in at least one direction …reduced may be relative to (e.g., remaining) other portions of the formed 3D object … in some embodiments, formation of a (e.g., at least one) critical portion of a 3D object comprises annealing, Para. [0145] of BULLER ) ; and simulating the sets of temperature parameters and puncher speed parameters and evaluating simulation results ( the computational model comprises historical data and/or a simulation … in some embodiments, the computational model comprises a physics simulation or a machine learning simulation … in some embodiments, the physics simulation comprises a simulation of the forming process of the three-dimensional object, Para . [0012] of BULLER; See also finite element analysis [ finite element analysis is interpreted as simulation /simulation analysis ], Para. [0038] of LUCKEY; See also citations of temperature parameters and puncher speed parameters above) to obtain a temperature parameter and a speed parameter with a highest evaluation score (“to obtain a temperature parameter and a speed parameter …” limitation is not positively recited and is interpreted as intended use) . Regarding claim 5 , BULLER as modified by LUCKEY discloses the forming method according to claim 2 (as shown above) , wherein adjusting the node position ( [Examiner’s note: the “adjusting” limitation is a contingent limitation (in claim 2) and not required by the claim; See MPEP 2111.04(II) discussed in claim 2] ) comprises: analyzing a key parameter of the node (a heuristic may suggest the one or more portions of the geometric model considering an (e.g., estimated) internal material property of a formed 3D object, Para. [0127] of BULLER; See also the virtual pre-formation environment suggests at least one orientation with which a requested 3D object may be formed by a (e.g., selected) manufacturing device … in some embodiments, the pre-formation environment offers a selection of a preferred and/or recommended manufacturing device (e.g ., from a plurality of manufacturing device options) … in some embodiments, the virtual pre-formation environment enables a (e.g., visual and/or data) comparison between at least two (e.g., versions of) virtual models of requested 3D object, Para. [0009] of BULLER ) to generate several suggested values (“to generate several suggested values …” limitation is not positively recited and is interpreted as intended use) ; simulating and evaluating the suggested values of the key parameter ( the computational model comprises historical data and/or a simulation … in some embodiments, the computational model comprises a physics simulation or a machine learning simulation … in some embodiments, the physics simulation comprises a simulation of the forming process of the three-dimensional object, Para. [0012] of BULLER; See also finite element analysis [ finite element analysis is interpreted as simulation /simulation analysis ], Para. [0038] of LUCKEY; See also a heuristic may suggest the one or more portions of the geometric model considering an (e.g., estimated) internal material property of a formed 3D object, Para. [0127] of BULLER; See also the virtual pre-formation environment suggests at least one orientation with which a requested 3D object may be formed by a (e.g., selected) manufacturing device … in some embodiments, the pre-formation environment offers a selection of a preferred and/or recommended manufacturing device (e.g., from a plurality of manufacturing device options) … in some embodiments, the virtual pre-formation environment enables a (e.g., visual and/or data) comparison between at least two (e.g., versions of) virtual models of requested 3D object, Para. [0009] of BULLER ) to obtain a decision value of the key parameter (“to obtain a decision value of the key parameter …” limitation is not positively recited and is interpreted as intended use) ; and adjusting the node position according to the decision value of the key parameter ( interactive model may facilitate altering the position of at least a portion of the geometric model of the 3D object displayed (e.g., by rotation, movement, and/or mirroring), Para. [0139] of BULLER) . Regarding claim 6 , BULLER as modified by LUCKEY discloses the forming method according to claim 5 (as shown above) , wherein evaluating the suggested values ([Examiner’s note: the “adjusting” limitation (which comprises the “evaluating” sub-limitation) is a contingent limitation (in claim 2) and not required by the claim; See MPEP 2111.04(II) discussed in claim 2] ) comprises performing an evaluation using a forming limit diagram (metal sheet forming processes are typically limited by the material's ability to be strained past its rupture point, Para. [0005] of LUCKEY). Regarding claim 7 , BULLER as modified by LUCKEY discloses the forming method according to claim 1 (as shown above) , wherein the basic forming curve has a holding stage at which the selected processing curve is optimized (it may be necessary to leave the blank holder 30 in the lowered position while raising the upper die 18 such that the part remains on the blank holder 30 and punch 22 … using a suitable distribution system cooling air is applied for a period of time, typically between 5 and 45 seconds to the upper exposed surface of the workpiece 12 to cool the workpiece 12 and increase the yield strength of the workpiece 12 whereby it can be removed from the punch 22 without distortion, Para. [0031] of LUCKEY) , and the optimization of the selected processing curve comprises: capturing a temperature parameter at an end of a previous process (thermocouples to monitor temperature, Para. [0035] of LUCKEY; See also the process is tolerant of the large changes in temperature that can occur during a production run … the forming apparatus 10 temperature changes to ensure the complete forming of the workpiece 12 … the forming apparatus 10 temperature decreases from run to run in a production process, Para. [0038] of LUCKEY) ; obtaining a required processing time according to a final temperature of the process (it may be necessary, however, to adjust the maximum pressure dwell time as the forming apparatus 10 temperature changes to ensure the complete forming of the workpiece 12 … dwell time changes are a function of the change in flow stress with respect to temperature … for example, as illustrated in FIG. 15 as the forming apparatus 10 temperature decreases from run to run in a production process, the flow stress of the material or the workpiece 12 increases thereby requiring longer duration of maximum pressure dwells to finish the fine details of the workpiece 12, Para. [0038] of LUCKEY) ; obtaining a plurality of sets of decision times according to built-in equations (such dwell time extension can be determined through experimental forming trials or by finite element analysis … once a relationship between dwell time and forming apparatus 10 temperature has been established, dwell time adjustments can be applied automatically throughout a production run by programming the press software and/or controller to monitor the forming apparatus 10 temperature and adjust the maximum pressure dwell time accordingly, Para. [0038] of LUCKEY) ; and determining whether the required processing time is greater than the sets of decision times (such dwell time extension can be determined through experimental forming trials or by finite element analysis … once a relationship between dwell time and forming apparatus 10 temperature has been established, dwell time adjustments can be applied automatically throughout a production run by programming the press software and/or controller to monitor the forming apparatus 10 temperature and adjust the maximum pressure dwell time accordingly, Para. [0038] of LUCKEY ; [monitoring the temperature, which corresponds to a calculated time/duration and adjusting the maximum pressure dwell time is interpreted as corresponding to determining whether the required processing time is greater than the maximu m [ i. e., the other sets of decision times] ) to determine whether a holding time parameter matches the optimization target (“to determine whether a holding time parameter matches …” limitation is not positively recited and is interpreted as intended use) . Regarding claim 8 , BULLER as modified by LUCKEY discloses the forming method according to claim 7 (as shown above) , further comprising: simulating the required processing time and the sets of decision times (dwell time extension can be determined through experimental forming trials or by finite element analysis, Para. [0038] of LUCKEY; [finite element analysis is interpreted as corresponding to a simulation]) , and normalizing and evaluating several simulation results ( a similarity tolerance may be regarding a fundamental length scale (FLS) of the portion (e.g., volume enclosed by the surface patch), a radius of curvature ( RoC ) of a (e.g., first) selected portion surface, or an angle of the selected portion surface (e.g., relative to a coordinate system, global vector, and/or with respect to the platform, wherein the portion is of a virtual model of the 3D object, Para. [0246] of BULLER; [scaling is interpreted as a type of normalization] ; See also the computational model comprises historical data and/or a simulation … in some embodiments, the computational model comprises a physics simulation or a machine learning simulation … in some embodiments, the physics simulation comprises a simulation of the forming process of the three-dimensional object, Para. [0012] of BULLER; See also finite element analysis [which is interpreted as a simulation], Para. [0038] of LUCKEY; ) to obtain a holding time parameter with a highest evaluation score (“to obtain a holding time parameter with a highest evaluation score …” limitation is not positively recited and is interpreted as intended use) . Regarding claim 9 , BULLER as modified by LUCKEY discloses the forming method according to claim 1 (as shown above) , wherein each selected processing curve is a template segment ( at least one template is associated with any (e.g., each) virtual model of a requested 3D object in an Object Environment application , Para. [0228] of BULLER ) . Regarding claim 10 , BULLER as modified by LUCKEY discloses the forming method according to claim 1 (as shown above) , wherein the basic forming curve has a forming stage, at which the optimization target is efficiency and forming limit ( processes are typically limited by the material's ability to be strained past its rupture point, Para. [0005] of LUCKEY; [limited strain of a material in this forming/punching context is interpreted as a forming limit]; See also next paragraph: superplastic forming is a process that takes advantage of a material's superplasticity or ability to be strained past its rupture point under certain elevated temperature conditions … superplasticity in metals is defined by very high tensile elongation and is the ability of certain materials to undergo extreme elongation at proper temperature and strain rate … superplastic forming is a process used to produce parts that are difficult to form using conventional fabrication techniques, Para. [0006] of LUCKEY; See also maintaining a target strain rate for deforming the sheet throughout the forming cycle, Para. [0007] of LUCKEY; Regarding efficiency, Para. [0034] of LUCKEY recites “present invention utilizes the forming apparatus 10 and a method of use thereof to achieve forming times faster than conventional superplastic forming”) . Regarding claim 11 , BULLER as modified by LUCKEY discloses the forming method according to claim 1 (as shown above) , wherein the basic forming curve has a holding stage (it may be necessary to leave the blank holder 30 in the lowered position while raising the upper die 18 such that the part remains on the blank holder 30 and punch 22 … using a suitable distribution system cooling air is applied for a period of time, typically between 5 and 45 seconds to the upper exposed surface of the workpiece 12 to cool the workpiece 12 and increase the yield strength of the workpiece 12 whereby it can be removed from the punch 22 without distortion, Para. [0031] of LUCKEY) , at which the optimization target is a small amount of springback ( zero springback , Para. [0008] of LUCKEY) and high level of flatness ( one or more layers within the 3D object may be substantially planar (e.g., flat) … the planarity of a surface or a boundary the layer may be (e.g., substantially) uniform … substantially uniform may be relative to the intended purpose of the 3D object, Para. [0164] of BULLER) . Regarding claim 12 , BULLER as modified by LUCKEY discloses the forming method according to claim 1 (as shown above) , wherein the basic forming curve has a demolding stage ( once the workpiece is fully formed, the workpiece is lifted off the punch and removed from the forming apparatus, Para. [0009] of LUCKEY) , at which the optimization target is demolding speed and temperature ( using a suitable distribution system cooling air is applied for a period of time, typically between 5 and 45 seconds to the upper exposed surface of the workpiece 12 to cool the workpiece 12 and increase the yield strength of the workpiece 12 whereby it can be removed from the punch 22 without distortion … accordingly, once the workpiece 12 has reached the proper cooling level or temperature level, the blank holder 30 is raised to remove the workpiece 12 from the punch 22, Para. [0031] of LUCKEY) . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: BAREISCH (US Patent No. 6276656) teaches , at Col. 15, Line 38 – Col. 16, Line 6, “Five models were used to properly simulate a molding cycle. The first (the cooling mode) depicts the mold closed from the time hot molten polycarbonate contacts the cavity surface until the mold is opened. The second depicts the mirror-side (the side opposite from the stamper) while the mold is open and the cavity surface is exposed to air. The third and fourth depict the stamper-side first with the disc still in contact, then with the disc removed and the stamper exposed to air. The final model (delay model) depicts the mold closed before the molten polycarbonate contacts the cavity surfaces. Room temperature was used as the initial temperature for the cooling model. The output temperatures from each model are used as the input temperatures for the appropriate model that follows. That is the output temperatures from the cooling model are the input temperatures for the mirror and stamper with disc models, the output from the stamper with disc is the input for the stamper exposed to air model, the output from the mirror and stamper exposed to air models are the input for the delay model, and the output from the delay model is the input for the cooling model for the next cycle. The cycle is repeated until the input and output temperatures are repeatable each cycle. This can be as little as two cycles or more than forty cycles depending upon the mold design and molded article. Thirty cycles were required for the final run of this set of models”. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JOHN P HOCKER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0501 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Rehana Perveen can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3676 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT JOHN P. HOCKER Examiner Art Unit 2189 /JOHN P HOCKER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2189 /REHANA PERVEEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189