DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumikawa et al. (10,089,422) in view of Wells (6,543,273). Sumikawa discloses an identification of a material value of a workpiece comprising; creating correlation data (kinematic-hardening incremental vector; dαi,j) comprising yield surface radius when stress vs strain gradient dδ/dε starts to decrease as yield stress Y (col. 13, lines 42-45) in an elastic-plastic constitutive model (col. 13, lines 49-50) between a known material characteristic value (predicted springback amount; col. 14, lines 9-10) using material constants (col. 13, lines 35-36 and 46-47) of a first workpiece (col. 13, lines 16-21) and a first representative value comprising experimental values of the stress-strain relation acquired during working (deformation, col. 13, lines 18-20 and 27-28). A second representative value (shape information, stress distribution and strain distribution; col. 14, lines 52-54) is obtained when a second workpiece (press formed product; col. 14, line 52) is worked, the second workpiece having a material characteristic (springback) whose value is unknown, by acquiring a material characteristic value (acquired springback amount after die release, col. 14, line 64) using the second representative value (shape information, stress distribution and strain distribution; col. 14, lines 52-54) and the correlation data (dαi,j, col. 14, lines 54-57). The second representative value is a value obtained during press forming which is the same as the first representative value during press forming to deform a steel workpiece. Sumikawa discloses that a material thickness (1.2mm, Examples 1 and 2) is a same measurement condition but Sumikawa does not disclose that length is a same predetermined measurement condition.
Wells teaches a standard piece (10; col. 9, lines 60-67) which is a first workpiece with known material characteristics (based on material type Ti-6Al-4V) wherein correlation data between the known material characteristics and a first representative value (Tear Energy, Specimen ID 5-8; Fig. 8) is created during a working test (col. 11, lines 50-55). Wells discloses a second workpiece (20) which is a non-standard piece having material characteristic values which are unknown (col. 10, lines 1-10) wherein a length dimension is a same predetermined measurement condition (col. 10, lines 16-17; dimensional equivalence). The second workpiece (20) comprises many metallic products which are formed to specific shapes which are not standard pieces (col. 12, lines 28-45) and a test specimen (22; Fig. 9A) is taken from the formed shapes and is used to acquire a second representative value (Tear Energy, Specimen ID 1-4; Fig. 8) in a same dynamic tear test (Fig. 7A). Wells teaches that a length condition is the same test constraint that is used for known material characteristic pieces (standard pieces) pieces and unknown material characteristic pieces (non-standard piece). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to include a length of the workpiece as a same predetermined measurement condition in the identification method of Sumikawa as taught by Wells so that material workpieces of differing length are tested under the same length conditions so that their material properties are equated during the testing.
Regarding claim 2, Sumikawa discloses that the measurement condition is a geometric value (shape information; col. 14, lines 52-53) and a physical property (stress distribution and strain distribution; col. 14, line 53).
Regarding claim 3, Sumikawa discloses that the creation of the correlation data (col. 5, lines 55-60) includes a plurality (series of) simulations (steps 1-5) using the elastic-plastic constitutive model are processed wherein the known material value (springback predicted by computer simulation, col. 14, lines 8-10) is obtained. Then a working simulation (springback analysis; col. 15, lines 32-41) is executed in a working process (during press forming) using the plurality of created simulation characteristics (col. 15, lines 5-11) using stress-strain behavior during working to predict springback (col. 15, lines 38-39).
Regarding claim 4, Sumikawa discloses that a first test workpiece is steel (col. 15, lines 47-48) and that a second workpiece (press-forming) is steel (col. 16, lines 24- 25).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, a variation in material characteristic values (different springback; col. 16, lines 40-45) is calculated for each of a plurality of bending angles (Φ) when a manufacturer is conducting actual bending of the workpiece (col. 16, lines 30-36).
Regarding claim 7, Sumikawa discloses that a plurality of workpieces having a material physical property (steel) are worked under the same predetermined conditions of press forming (col. 15, lines 45-55) wherein Fig. 11 shows that a plurality (at least three) experimental values (P1) are obtained during the press working condition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12-23-2025 have been fully considered. Applicant’s specification recites [0024] that length is a type of geometric value and is a representative portion between two surfaces in an x-axis direction or a depth of recess in the y-axis direction. Wells is used to respond to Applicants claim 1 amendment and Wells teaches that workpiece length is a predetermined condition, wherein for a plurality of different materials (col. 14, lines 35-40) a non-standard test piece must have a certain length (col. 14, lines 50-60) so that the test result is correlated to the standard test piece. It is obvious to the skilled artisan that the first workpiece and the second workpiece in Sumikawa should be correlated with length as a predetermined condition as taught by Wells so that a certain length of workpiece is deformed which is similar in length and thickness specifications for a correlation comparison to identify material characteristics of the first and second workpiece.
Conclusion
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 EDWARD THOMAS TOLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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.
/EDWARD T TOLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725