DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 18, 2026, has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 7-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 5020858 B2 to Seiichi (as evidenced by US 2018/0065164 A1) in view of US 2016/0082495 A1 to Miyagi.
Regarding claim 7, Seiichi teaches a press forming method (Para. [0001]) comprising:
press forming a blank into a press forming part that includes a bent portion in a top view (Fig. 9; Paras. [0010]-[0011]) and a top portion, a side wall portion continuous from the top portion via a punch shoulder, and a flange portion continuous from the side wall portion via a die shoulder, the press forming part having a curved portion curved in a recessed manner in a top view (Fig. 9; Examiner Annotated Fig. 9 is reproduced below to show the blank including the recited parts),
PNG
media_image1.png
431
681
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein a stretch flange deformation generates at the flange portion in the curved portion when the press forming part is brought into a target shape (Figs. 4, 5 and 9; Para. [0013]; using a punch and die to form the curved piece having a hat-shaped cross section will result in stretch flange deformation when forming the piece into that shape, i.e., the target shape, as evidenced by US 2018/0065164 A1 Paras. [0045]-[0046]), and
wherein a bending radius of the die shoulder in the curved portion increases from both end sides toward a middle portion of the curve (Figs. 5 and 9; Paras. [0013] and [0030]; the fillet 16 may be positioned on the die shoulder at the bend portion and has a higher bending radius in the center where it is approximately flat, i.e., a very high bend radius, vs the end sides where it is curved).
Seiichi fails to explicitly teach the press-formed part is L-shaped in a top view. Seiichi teaches a press-formed part have a bent portion (Figs. 6-10; Paras. [0010]-[0011]), however the press formed part is not L-shaped.
Miyagi teaches a press formed part having a hat shaped cross-section profile (Para. [0086} and a L-shaped profile in the top view (Para. [0086; Fig. 4B).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the press formed part of Seiichi to include an L-shaped profile in the top view as taught by Miyagi as L-shaped components are required in automobile bodies (Miyagi, Para. [0003]) and Seiichi teaches providing the fillet in bent parts having a hat-shaped cross-section improves dimensional accuracy (Seiichi, Paras. [0010]-[0011]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Seiichi teaches the press forming method according to claim 7 (Fig. 9).
Seiichi fails to explicitly teach wherein a minimum bending radius of the die shoulder is smaller than a bending radius of the punch shoulder. Seiichi teaches the part has a die shoulder and a punch shoulder each having a bending radius (Examiner Annotated Fig. 9), but is silent regarding the minimum bending angle of each.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try having the minimum bending radius of the die shoulder smaller than a bending radius of the punch shoulder as there was a known need to have bending radii of the curved portions (i.e., the punch and die shoulder portions) be within a certain range to prevent defects in the press formed product (Miyagi, Para. [0093]), and there are only a finite number of identified predictable solutions with respect to the bending radius of the die shoulder relative to the punch shoulder (i.e., less than, equal to, or greater than). It is also noted that the specification places no criticality on the minimum bending radius of the die shoulder being less than the bending radius of the punch shoulder (Paras. [0020], [0031] and [0036]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Seiichi teaches the press forming method according to claim 7 (Fig. 9).
Seiichi fails to explicitly teach a portion of shape that restrains rotational motion, which restrains a rotational motion of the blank in a press forming process, is formed on the top portion on at least one of the both end sides of the curve. However, an alternative embodiment of Seiichi (Fig. 7; Para. [0021]) teaches a portion of shape that restrains rotational motion 6, which restrains a rotational motion of the blank in a press forming process, is formed on the top portion on at least one of the both end sides of the curve (Fig. 7 shows a fillet 6 formed at least partially on the top portion, and it is noted that the fillet is interpreted as a shape that restrains rotational motion as the flat surface of the fillet would resist rotational movement). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first embodiment of Seiichi to include the shape that restrains rotational motion as taught by the alternative embodiment of Seiichi so that the springback and torsion is reduced at the punch shoulder portion of the part (Para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Seiichi teaches the press forming method according to claim 8 (Fig. 9).
Seiichi fails to explicitly teach a portion of shape that restrains rotational motion, which restrains a rotational motion of the blank in a press forming process, is formed on the top portion on at least one of the both end sides of the curve. However, an alternative embodiment of Seiichi (Fig. 7; Para. [0021]) teaches a portion of shape that restrains rotational motion 6, which restrains a rotational motion of the blank in a press forming process, is formed on the top portion on at least one of the both end sides of the curve (Fig. 7 shows a fillet 6 formed at least partially on the top portion, and it is noted that the fillet is interpreted as a shape that restrains rotational motion as the flat surface of the fillet would resist rotational movement). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first embodiment of Seiichi to include the shape that restrains rotational motion as taught by the alternative embodiment of Seiichi so that the springback and torsion is reduced at the punch shoulder portion of the part (Para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Seiichi teaches the press forming method according to claim 7 (Fig. 9).
Seiichi fails to explicitly teach wherein a flange width of the flange portion in the curved portion is larger in the middle portion than on the both ends sides of the curve. Seiichi teaches the part has a flange (Examiner Annotated Fig. 9), but is silent regarding the width of the flange.
Miyagi teaches a part including a top, punch shoulder, side wall, die shoulder and flange (Fig. 4B) and the width of the flange is larger in the middle portion than on the both ends sides of the curve (Fig. 4B clearly shows the flange in the center is larger than on the end sides).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the flange in the formed part of Seiichi with the flange of Miyagi as those components and their functions were well known in the art and a person of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted each of these known elements for another with the predictable result of providing a flange that stabilizes the part.
Regarding claim 12, modified Seiichi teaches the press forming method according to claim 8 (Fig. 9).
Seiichi fails to explicitly teach wherein a flange width of the flange portion in the curved portion is larger in the middle portion than on the both ends sides of the curve. Seiichi teaches the part has a flange (Examiner Annotated Fig. 9), but is silent regarding the width of the flange.
Miyagi teaches a part including a top, punch shoulder, side wall, die shoulder and flange (Fig. 4B) and the width of the flange is larger in the middle portion than on the both ends sides of the curve (Fig. 4B clearly shows the flange in the center is larger than on the end sides).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the flange in the formed part of Seiichi with the flange of Miyagi as those components and their functions were well known in the art and a person of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted each of these known elements for another with the predictable result of providing a flange that stabilizes the part.
Regarding claim 13, modified Seiichi teaches the press forming method according to claim 9 (Fig. 9).
Seiichi fails to explicitly teach wherein a flange width of the flange portion in the curved portion is larger in the middle portion than on the both ends sides of the curve. Seiichi teaches the part has a flange (Examiner Annotated Fig. 9), but is silent regarding the width of the flange.
Miyagi teaches a part including a top, punch shoulder, side wall, die shoulder and flange (Fig. 4B) and the width of the flange is larger in the middle portion than on the both ends sides of the curve (Fig. 4B clearly shows the flange in the center is larger than on the end sides).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the flange in the formed part of Seiichi with the flange of Miyagi as those components and their functions were well known in the art and a person of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted each of these known elements for another with the predictable result of providing a flange that stabilizes the part.
Regarding claim 14, modified Seiichi teaches the press forming method according to claim 10 (Fig. 9).
Seiichi fails to explicitly teach wherein a flange width of the flange portion in the curved portion is larger in the middle portion than on the both ends sides of the curve. Seiichi teaches the part has a flange (Examiner Annotated Fig. 9), but is silent regarding the width of the flange.
Miyagi teaches a part including a top, punch shoulder, side wall, die shoulder and flange (Fig. 4B) and the width of the flange is larger in the middle portion than on the both ends sides of the curve (Fig. 4B clearly shows the flange in the center is larger than on the end sides).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the flange in the formed part of Seiichi with the flange of Miyagi as those components and their functions were well known in the art and a person of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted each of these known elements for another with the predictable result of providing a flange that stabilizes the part.
Regarding claim 15, modified Seiichi teaches the press forming method according to claim 7 (Fig. 9), wherein the blank used for the press forming of the press forming part is a metal sheet having tensile strength of a 440 MPa-grade to a 1600 MPa-grade (Para. [0030]; the sheet has a tensile strength of 590 MPa).
Regarding claim 16, modified Seiichi teaches the press forming method according to claim 8 (Fig. 9), wherein the blank used for the press forming of the press forming part is a metal sheet having tensile strength of a 440 MPa-grade to a 1600 MPa-grade (Para. [0030]; the sheet has a tensile strength of 590 MPa).
Regarding claim 17, modified Seiichi teaches the press forming method according to claim 9 (Fig. 9), wherein the blank used for the press forming of the press forming part is a metal sheet having tensile strength of a 440 MPa-grade to a 1600 MPa-grade (Para. [0030]; the sheet has a tensile strength of 590 MPa).
Regarding claim 18, modified Seiichi teaches the press forming method according to claim 10 (Fig. 9), wherein the blank used for the press forming of the press forming part is a metal sheet having tensile strength of a 440 MPa-grade to a 1600 MPa-grade (Para. [0030]; the sheet has a tensile strength of 590 MPa).
Regarding claim 19, modified Seiichi teaches the press forming method according to claim 11 (Fig. 9), wherein the blank used for the press forming of the press forming part is a metal sheet having tensile strength of a 440 MPa-grade to a 1600 MPa-grade (Para. [0030]; the sheet has a tensile strength of 590 MPa).
Regarding claim 20, modified Seiichi teaches the press forming method according to claim 12 (Fig. 9), wherein the blank used for the press forming of the press forming part is a metal sheet having tensile strength of a 440 MPa-grade to a 1600 MPa-grade (Para. [0030]; the sheet has a tensile strength of 590 MPa).
Regarding claim 21, modified Seiichi teaches the press forming method according to claim 13 (Fig. 9), wherein the blank used for the press forming of the press forming part is a metal sheet having tensile strength of a 440 MPa-grade to a 1600 MPa-grade (Para. [0030]; the sheet has a tensile strength of 590 MPa).
Regarding claim 22, modified Seiichi teaches the press forming method according to claim 14 (Fig. 9), wherein the blank used for the press forming of the press forming part is a metal sheet having tensile strength of a 440 MPa-grade to a 1600 MPa-grade (Para. [0030]; the sheet has a tensile strength of 590 MPa).
Regarding claim 24, modified modified Seiichi teaches the press forming method according to claim 8 (Fig. 9), wherein:
the minimum bending radius of the die shoulder is smaller than a bending radius of the punch shoulder in the curved portion (this claim depends from claim 8, in which modified Seiichi includes a minimum bending radius of the die shoulder is smaller than the bending radius of the punch shoulder at any portion of the shoulders including in the curved portion, i.e., in the areas of the die shoulder on the curved portion that do not include the fillet), and
the bending radius of the punch shoulder in the curved portion is constant from the middle portion of the curve to both end sides of the curve (Fig. 9 shows that the punch shoulder has a constant bending radius throughout the curved portion).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seiichi (as evidenced by US 2018/0065164 A1) in view of Miyagi in further view of JP 2010064138 B2 to Yoshida.
Regarding claim 23, modified Seiichi teaches a press forming method of further performing, with a press forming part press formed by the press forming method according to claim 7 being a pre-formed part (Fig. 9; see rejection of claim 7 above).
Seiichi fails to explicitly teach press forming of the pre-formed part into a target shape having a top portion, a side wall continuous from the top portion via a punch shoulder, a flange portion continuous from the side wall via a die shoulder, and a curved portion curved in a recessed manner in a top view, wherein, in the pre-formed part, a bending radius of the die shoulder in the middle portion of the curved portion is larger than a bending radius of the die shoulder in the middle portion of the curved portion of the target shape.
Yoshida teaches forming a pre-formed part having a top 17, punch shoulder, side wall 22, die shoulder and flange 11 (Fig. 4; the punch shoulder is shown between the top and side wall, and the die shoulder is shown between the side wall and flange) and press forming of the pre-formed part into a target shape having a top portion, a side wall continuous from the top portion via a punch shoulder, a flange portion continuous from the side wall via a die shoulder, and a curved portion curved in a recessed manner in a top view (Fig. 5; Para. [0021]),
wherein, in the pre-formed part, a bending radius of the die shoulder in the middle portion of the curved portion is larger than a bending radius of the die shoulder in the middle portion of the curved portion of the target shape (Fig. 5b; Para. [0021]; the bending radius of the curved portion, including at the middle portion, is larger in the pre-formed part than in the target shape).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Seiichi to have the forming process be performed in two steps with a pre-formed part and a target part as taught by Yoshida so that stresses get cancelled out and the dimensional accuracy is better (Yoshida, Paras. [0007]and [0011]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and remarks dated June 18, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 102, 103 and 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, it is noted that a new rejection has been made in view of the combination of Seiichi and Miyagi. As discussed in the rejection of claim 7 above, Miyagi teaches a press formed part having an L-shaped profile in the top view, and Seiichi teaches providing a fillet in a bent portion to increase the dimensional accuracy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to form a press formed part having a L-shaped top view along with the other features taught by Seiichi.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-6722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
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, Chris Templeton can be reached at (571)270-1477. 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.
/MATTHEW STEPHENS/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights