DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Para. [0030] of the specification and claims 1-12 are amended.
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Claims 1-12 are rejected (Final Rejection).
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and remarks (arguments) referred to below were filed 9 June 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims 1-12 obviate the prior specification and claim objections, which have been withdrawn (although a new minor claim objection to claim 1 is newly added).
Applicant’s amendments to the claims 3, 4 and 11 obviate the prior 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections, which have been withdrawn.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant’s arguments filed 9 June 2026 with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues the claim 1 recites “the stamping process having a forming stage and a demolding stage” (emphasis added), but it does not. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the stamping process having a forming stage and a demolding stage”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Examiner’s current and previous office action indicated that LUCKEY teaches a stamping/punching process.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, 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 for the purpose of providing for significantly faster forming times, improved material utilization, uniform thinning and the capability to use lower cost aluminum sheet (Para. [0041] of LUCKEY).
Regarding the newly-added limitations, the § 103 rejections have been modified to address Applicant’s amended claim language based in part on different portions of BULLER and LUCKEY.
Claim Objection
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “… an optimization of the selected processing curve comprise…”, which appears to be an artifact of Applicant’s editing process. Examiner recommends replacing “comprise” with “comprises”.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “wherein the largest deformation refers to a condition in which a maximum strain value occurs in the workpiece without exceeding the rupture strain value during the stamping process”.
Applicant indicates that support this limitation is “according to the meaning of the forming limit”.
Additionally, claim 1 has been amended to recite “temporal superimposing” and “the optimization target is set according to a forming limit of the material characteristics of the workpiece, while in the demolding stage, the optimization target is set according to the process requirements”. Claims 10-12 have similar “stage” based constraints. However, Applicant has not indicated where the support for these paragraphs are located in the specification.
Accordingly, Applicant has not particularly pointed out where each of the newly added claim limitations originate from in the original specification. There is no explanation in the original specification for the subject matter pertaining to: “wherein the largest deformation refers to a condition in which a maximum strain value occurs in the workpiece without exceeding the rupture strain value during the stamping process”.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 2-12 depend respectively from rejected claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-12 are also rejected under the same rationale since these claims inherit the respective deficiencies of claim 1, while failing to cure the respective deficiencies of claim 1.
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 1-12 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 1, claim 1 recites “wherein the basic forming curve has a forming stage and a demolding stage, in the molding stage, the optimization target is set according to a forming limit of the material characteristics of the workpiece” (emphasis added). However, it is unclear whether “the molding stage” and “the forming stage” are meant to refer to the same stage (and simply have an antecedent basis issue) or are referring to different stages. Claims 2-12 depend, directly or indirectly, from rejected claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-12 are also rejected under the same rationale since the claims inherit at least the respective deficiencies of claim 1, while failing to cure the inherited deficiencies.
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 method of forming 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 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 … for 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; [Examiner’s note: Applicant’s claim 11 appears to indicate that flatness corresponds to an optimization target]; 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 … for 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; [material type and/or porosity are interpreted as corresponding to material characteristics of a workpiece, presence/absence of auxiliary support and/or rate of formation are interpreted as corresponding to processing requirements, and a CAD virtual model is interpreted as corresponding to a finished product CAD file]; 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 temporally 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 (user may select a printing instruction set from a plurality of suggested printing instruction sets … for 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 … 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 … for 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; [Examiner’s note: Applicant’s claim 11 appears to indicate that flatness corresponds to an optimization target]), wherein an optimization of the selected processing curve comprise 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) 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; See also a layer of transformed or hardened material may comprise a cross section of a 3D object (e.g., a horizontal cross section) … at times a layer of transformed or hardened material may comprise a deviation from a cross section of a 3D object … the deviation may comprise vertical or horizontal deviation, Para. [0178] of BULLER), wherein the worse strain value is obtained according to strain values (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) of a plurality of cross sections of the finished product at different positions (a layer of transformed or hardened material may comprise a cross section of a 3D object (e.g., a horizontal cross section) … at times a layer of transformed or hardened material may comprise a deviation from a cross section of a 3D object … the deviation may comprise vertical or horizontal deviation, Para. [0178] of BULLER; See also 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); wherein the basic forming curve has a forming stage (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; [Examiner’s note: Applicant’s claim 11 appears to indicate that flatness corresponds to an optimization target]).
BULLER appears to fail to explicitly disclose a stamping process and wherein the largest deformation refers to a condition in which a maximum strain value occurs in the workpiece without exceeding the rupture strain value during the stamping process; wherein the basic forming curve has a forming stage and a demolding stage, in the molding stage, the optimization target is set according to a forming limit of the material characteristics of the workpiece, while in the demolding stage, the optimization target is set according to the process requirements.
LUCKEY, however, is in the field of material forming (Para. [0003] of LUCKEY) and teaches a method of forming 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), optimization of the selected processing curve comprises: calculating a worse strain value when the workpiece has a largest deformation by a cross section method (metal sheet typically undergoes a reduction or change in the cross-sectional area or wall thickness of the sheet … metal sheet forming processes are typically limited by the material's ability to be strained past its rupture point, Para. [0005] of LUCKEY), wherein the worse strain value is obtained according to strain values of a plurality of cross sections of the finished product at different positions (the metal sheet typically undergoes a reduction or change in the cross-sectional area or wall thickness of the sheet, Para. [0005] of LUCKEY; See also equalize the pressure on both sides of the workpiece 12 thereby minimizing any pressure differential between the top and bottom sides of the workpiece 12 when the forming apparatus 10 components separate, Para. [0030] of LUCKEY; [two sides of the workpiece and top/bottom sides of the workpiece are interpreted as different positions]); wherein the largest deformation refers to a condition in which a maximum strain value occurs in the workpiece without exceeding the rupture strain value during the stamping process (metal sheet forming processes are typically limited by the material's ability to be strained past its rupture point, Para. [0005] of LUCKEY); wherein the basic forming curve has a forming stage and a demolding stage (forming cycle, Para. [0007] of LUCKEY; See also workpiece lifted off the punch and removed from the forming apparatus, Para. [0009] of LUCKEY; [workpiece being lifted off punch and/or removed is interpreted as at least a demolding substep/cycle]), in the molding stage, the optimization target is set according to a forming limit of the material characteristics of the workpiece (maintaining a target strain rate for deforming the sheet throughout the forming cycle, Para. [0007] of LUCKEY), while in the demolding stage, the optimization target is set according to the process requirements (once the workpiece is fully formed, the workpiece is lifted off the punch and removed from the forming apparatus, Para. [0009] of LUCKEY; See also 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; See also 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).
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 for the purpose of providing for significantly faster forming times, improved material utilization, uniform thinning and the capability to use lower cost aluminum sheet (Para. [0041] of LUCKEY).
Regarding claim 2, BULLER as modified by LUCKEY discloses the method according to claim 1 (as shown above), wherein when 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 (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, and Applicant’s claim 11 appears to indicate that flatness corresponds to an optimization target]).
Regarding claim 3, BULLER as modified by LUCKEY discloses the method according to claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the optimization of the selected processing curve in the forming stage (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; [Examiner’s note: Applicant’s claim 11 appears to indicate that flatness corresponds to an optimization target]) comprises: 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 …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; See also maintaining a target strain rate for deforming the sheet throughout the forming cycle, Para. [0007] of LUCKEY; See also to maintain equivalent forming performance as the forming apparatus 10 temperature decreases the increase in the material's flow stress can require the blank holder 30 pressure to be increased … accordingly, applicant invention contemplates of monitoring the temperature of the forming apparatus and changing the blank holder pressure to compensate for temperature changes in the forming apparatus, particularly as the forming apparatus cools, Para. [0036] of LUCKEY; See also Paras. [0013] and [0228] of BULLER).
Regarding claim 4, BULLER as modified by LUCKEY discloses the 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; See also to maintain equivalent forming performance as the forming apparatus 10 temperature decreases the increase in the material's flow stress can require the blank holder 30 pressure to be increased … accordingly, applicant invention contemplates of monitoring the temperature of the forming apparatus and changing the blank holder pressure to compensate for temperature changes in the forming apparatus, particularly as the forming apparatus cools, Para. [0036] of LUCKEY; 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).
Regarding claim 5, BULLER as modified by LUCKEY discloses the method according to claim 2 (as shown above), wherein adjusting the node position comprises: analyzing a key parameter of the node to generate several suggested values (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; [although “suggested values” are shown above with relation to BULLER, “to generate several suggested values …” limitation is not given patentable weight because it is not positively recited and is interpreted as intended use); simulating and evaluating the suggested values of the key parameter to obtain a decision value 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; [although a decision value of the key parameter is shown in the citations above, the “to obtain a decision value of the key parameter” limitation is not given patentable weight because it 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 method according to claim 5 (as shown above), wherein evaluating the suggested values 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 method according to claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the optimization of the selected processing curve in the holding stage 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 maximum [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 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 to obtain a holding time parameter with a highest evaluation score (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; [although the limitation of “to obtain a holding time parameter with a highest evaluation score” is shown above, the limitation is not given patentable weight because it is not positively recited and is interpreted as intended use).
Regarding claim 9, BULLER as modified by LUCKEY discloses the 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 method according to claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the optimization target of the forming stage 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 method according to claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the optimization target of the 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) is amount of springback (zero springback, Para. [0008] of LUCKEY) and 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 method according to claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the optimization target of the 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) 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 (previously found and cited in form 892): 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”.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P HOCKER whose telephone number is (571)272-0501. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Rehana Perveen can be reached on (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.
JOHN P. HOCKER
Examiner
Art Unit 2189
/JOHN P HOCKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights