DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is made in response to the communication filed on December 1, 2025. Claims 1-16 are presented for examination. Claims 4-11 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1, 2, 12, and 16 are objected to.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
Claims 1-3 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as ineligible.
Claims 1 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 USC 102 over Ganesh.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 USC 103 over Ganesh in view of Cook.
Response To Arguments/Amendments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Reformatting of Limitations to Gerund Form: The Applicant is acknowledged for electing to formalistically modify the claims in the typical gerund form to simplify interpretation and expedite prosecution. As indicated in the prior Office Action, the record reflects that these amendments have no estoppel effect and are not being treated as substantive amendments. Note that this treatment does not extend to the other amendments made to the existing claims or the new claims.
35 USC 101: The Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered but are not persuasive. The Applicant relies on the added limitation, “performing a welding process based on the bead-width design data that was generated.” This is essentially a textbook MPEP 2106.05(f) “apply it” step that fails to confer eligibility. It lacks particularity in how the improvement itself is integrated and also fails to include a mechanism for the manner in which the improvement is used. For example, MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) states,
Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.
Essentially, the Applicant must provide a more direct link between the improvement and the use thereof in a particular mechanism to demonstrate an integration into a practical application or that the claim provides significantly more than the abstract idea. This will likely require further amendment with specificity as to how the alleged inventive improvement is deployed. Accordingly, the rejections are maintained.
Art Rejections: The Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been considered, but are not persuasive. The Applicant’s arguments will be treated in the order presented in the Applicant’s most recent response.
Ganesh Allegedly Does Not Anticipate a Feature of Designing a Bead Value: The Applicant states that the Ganesh reference fails to teach, “deciding on a design value of a width of the weld bead […] in the tailored blank prior to press forming based on a press-forming-induced change in a width relating to the elements for the weld bead obtained through calculation t the press forming analysis step.” However, as demonstrated in the specific rejection, and as shown in Ganesh Figure 2, the design is for both the initial bead width and the final width after pressing. That is, both are design inputs. The final width after pressing is represented in the weld line movement metric.
Ganesh Allegedly Only Covers One Input Width and Allegedly Fails to Contemplate a Longitudinal Length: First, in the broadest reasonable sense, the claim as recited is broad enough to cover only a single width. Second, the Applicant’s assertion does not make sense. The finite element analysis is being conducted over the entire part, requiring not only a two-dimensional rendering, but a three dimensional rendering. Also, the model determines the final width as a movement of the weld line, which is, at the very least, a two-dimensional determination, meaning that the movement will depend on the different width of the weld bead along multiple positions in the initial formation. Otherwise, there would not be a line. Therefore, contrary to the Applicant’s assertion, Ganesh teaches both “deciding on a design value of a width of the weld bead for each of positions along a longitudinal direction of the weld bead” and “a relationship between a position along the longitudinal direction of the weld bead and the design value of the width of the weld bead.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 12, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites, “in a previous round,” but fails to disclose what a round is. Clarification is required, and no new matter may be entered.
Claims 1, 12, and 16 are objected for being directed to restricted subject matter. In the election, the Applicant specifically elected Group I, directed to a method of designing a width of a weld bead, to the exclusion of Group II, directed to a method of making a tailored blank. Claims 1, 12, and 16 all recite steps directed to a method of making a tailored blank, which is restricted subject matter. The election was made without traverse.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Specifically, claims 12 recites, “the width,” but multiple widths are claimed in the independent claim. This leaves the ordinarily skilled artisan in doubt of the metes and bounds of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims
Claim 1 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claims recite a mental process and a mathematical operation, which are abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites,
performing press-forming analysis using the analysis model data to calculate deformation of the elements for the first sheet, the second sheet and the weld bead when the tailored blank is press formed; (Mental Evaluation, Mathematical Calculation – The analysis to calculate deformation is an evaluation, a mental process practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen, paper, and/or a calculator, an abstract idea. The analysis to calculate deformation is also a mathematical calculation, a mathematical concept, an abstract idea.)
deciding on a design value of a width of the weld bead for each of positions along a longitudinal direction of the weld bead in the tailored blank prior to press forming based on a press-forming-induced change in a width relating to the elements for the weld bead obtained through calculation of the deformation of the element for the first sheet, the second sheet, and the weld bead when the tailored blank is press formed, to generate bead-width design data indicating a relationship between a position along the longitudinal direction of the weld bead and the design value of the width of the weld bead in the tailored blank prior to press forming; and (Mental Evaluation – The designing to generate bead-width design data deformation is an evaluation, a mental process practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen, paper, and/or a calculator, an abstract idea.)
Claim 1 recites mental processes and mathematical concepts, which are abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
No.
Claim 1 recites the following additional limitations:
a model acquisition step of acquiring analysis model data representing a tailored blank having a first sheet and a second sheet joined together, the analysis model data containing elements for the first sheet, elements for the second sheet, and elements for a weld bead between an edge of the first sheet and an edge of the second sheet;
This is mere data gathering, similar to the MPEP 2106.05(g) examples: “e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent“ “iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions” “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display.” Mere data gathering is insignificant extra-solution activity and, under MPEP 2106.05(g), fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
performing a welding process based on the bead-width design data that was generated.
This is an apply-it step akin to the 2106.05(f) examples: “i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information,” “iii. Wireless delivery of out-of-region broadcasting content to a cellular telephone via a network without any details of how the delivery is accomplished” “iii. A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer vi. A method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair.” As described in the Response to Amendments/Arguments, under MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), there is no mechanism that integrates the improvement in the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.05(f), this limitation fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 fails to recite any additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Claim 1 recites the following additional limitations:
a model acquisition step of acquiring analysis model data representing a tailored blank having a first sheet and a second sheet joined together, the analysis model data containing elements for the first sheet, elements for the second sheet, and elements for a weld bead between an edge of the first sheet and an edge of the second sheet;
These additional limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity similar to the MPEP 2106.05(d) examples: “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network” “iii. Electronic recordkeeping” “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory” “vi. Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price”. Because these additional limitations are WURC and are insignificant extra-solution activity, under MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(g), these additional limitations fail to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept.
performing a welding process based on the bead-width design data that was generated.
This is an apply-it step akin to the 2106.05(f) examples: “i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information,” “iii. Wireless delivery of out-of-region broadcasting content to a cellular telephone via a network without any details of how the delivery is accomplished” “iii. A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer vi. A method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair.” As described in the Response to Amendments/Arguments, under MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), there is no mechanism that integrates the improvement in the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.05(f), this limitation fails to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept.
Claim 1 fails to provide any additional limitations that fail to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept.
Claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Claim 2
wherein: the acquiring of the analysis model data, the performing of the press-forming analysis, and the deciding on the design value of the width of the weld bead are repeatedly performed in two or more rounds; and (Repetition - This is a repetition of the limitations of claim 1, so it fails to confer eligibility for at least the same reasons as the limitations of claim 1)
the acquiring of the analysis model data from a second round onward acquires analysis model data containing the elements for the weld bead with a width based on the bead width design data that was generated. (Repetition – This step essentially repeats the model acquisition step of claim 1 with updated data and fails to confer eligibility for at least the same reasons.)
Claim 2 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 2 is ineligible.
Claim 3
further comprising: acquiring join-line-containing analysis model data representing a tailored blank having a first sheet and a second sheet joined together, the join-line-containing model data containing elements for the first sheet and elements for the second sheet and including a join line for the first and second sheets, the elements for the first sheet and the elements for the second sheet being in contact along the join line;
This is mere data gathering and WURC for the same reasons as the model acquisition step of claim 1.
performing press-forming analysis using the join-line-containing analysis model data to calculate deformation of the elements for the first and second sheets when the tailored blank represented by the join-line-containing analysis model data is press formed; and
This merely qualifies the evaluation conducted in the press-forming analysis step, so it is an element of the mental process, an element of the abstract idea. Therefore, this element fails to provide any additional limitations to confer eligibility.
deciding on an initial value of the width of the weld bead corresponding to the join line based on a press-forming-induced change in a width relating to elements for the first and second sheets on both sides of the join line obtained through the calculation at the previous performing of the press-forming analysis to generate initial value data indicating a relationship between a position along the longitudinal direction of the weld bead and the initial value of the width of the weld bead,
(Mental Evaluation, Mathematical Calculation – The decision on an initial value based on data is an evaluation, a mental process practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen, paper, and/or a calculator, an abstract idea. The analysis to calculate deformation is also a mathematical calculation, a mathematical concept, an abstract idea.)
This element fails to provide any additional limitations to confer eligibility.
wherein the acquiring of the analysis model data acquires the analysis model data containing the elements for the weld bead with a width based on the initial value data that was generated.
This is merely a qualification of the model acquisition step and fails to confer eligibility for at least the same reasons as the model acquisition step.
Should it be found otherwise, this describes what data represents in the process, so it merely limits the abstract idea to a particular field of technology, so under MPEP 2106.05(h), it fails to confer eligibility.
Claim 3 is ineligible.
Claim 12
press forming the tailored blank to manufacture a press-formed product including weld beads having the width based on the bead-width design data that was generated.
It is unclear to which claimed width this refers. It is possible that this integrates, but clarification must be provided. As of now, this is rejected by the same justification as the performing step in claim 1.
At least because of the lack of clarity in the additional limitation, claim 12 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 12 is ineligible.
Claim 13
wherein generating bead-width design data accounts for press-forming-induced changes in the width of the weld bead in the tailored blank to bring the width of the weld bead in the press-formed product closer to a target width.
This is an element of the generation of claim 1, which is a mental process and mathematical concept. Therefore, this is an element of the abstract idea.
Claim 13 fails to recite any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 13 is ineligible.
Claim 14
further comprising: bringing an edge of a tailored blank first sheet and an edge of a tailored blank second sheet into butt welding position and moving a fusion location forward along a butt line to weld the edge of the tailored blank first sheet and the edge of the tailored blank second sheet, the fusion location being moved forward while controlling an amount of heat input for fusing based on the bead-width design data that was generated.
This is close to a potential integration, but it still ends with “based on the bead-width design data that was generated.” This clearly separates, rather than integrates the improvement in the abstract idea from the practical application. The element that is improved is not involved in the mechanism that is supposed to integrate the abstract idea into the practical application. Accordingly, this is an “apply it” step for the same reasons as the performing step of claim 1.
Claim 14 fails to recite any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 14 is ineligible.
Claim 15
wherein the bead-width design data indicates a distribution of the design value of the width of the weld bead along the longitudinal direction of the weld bead.
This merely describes elements of the abstract idea determinations, so it is an element of the abstract idea.
Also, the nature of the data merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which fails to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 15 fails to recite any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 15 is ineligible.
Claim 16
wherein the bead-width design data indicates how to set a width of the weld bead for each of positions along the longitudinal direction of the weld bead.
This merely describes elements of the abstract idea determinations, so it is an element of the abstract idea.
Also, the nature of the data merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which fails to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 16 fails to recite any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 16 is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1: Ganesh
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NPL: “Determining the forming behavior of tailor welded blanks” by Ganesh et al. (Ganesh).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, Ganesh teaches:
A method of designing a width of a weld bead in a tailored blank, comprising: (Ganesh Page 13, First Column, Last Paragraph – Second Column, First Paragraph “The forming behavior of TWBs is influenced by several parameters, including thickness and strength differences between the sheets being welded; weld conditions such as weld properties, orientation, and location; number of welds; welding technique; and weld profile and microstructure. Predicting the TWB’s parameters in advance can help the fabricator determine its formability compared to that of unwelded base material. However, this prediction requires a lot of experimental and simulation trials for each case, which is time-consuming and resource-intensive” Page 13, Second Column, Third Paragraph “Researchers have been developing an expert system for TWBs that can predict their tensile, deep-drawing, and forming behaviors under varied base material and weld conditions using different formability tests and criteria and different material models. Expert systems might be used to determine the best material combinations and weld conditions for making successful TWBs, without the need for simulation and experimental trials” – This is a method of designing parameters, including width, of a weld bead in a tailor blank.)
acquiring analysis model data representing a tailored blank having a first sheet and a second sheet joined together, the analysis model data containing elements for the first sheet, elements for the second sheet, and elements for a weld bead between an edge of the first sheet and an edge of the second sheet; (Ganesh Page 13, First Column, First Paragraph “Tailor welded blanks (TWBs) (see Figure 1) are blanks with two or more sheets of different thicknesses, materials, or coatings welded in a single plane before forming. “ – The study concerns tailor welded blanks. TWBs that are formed by welds between two sheets, including the weld bead. Page 13, Third Column, Second-to-Last Paragraph – Page 14, First Paragraph “The tensile behavior, formability characteristics, and deep drawability of a TWB were simulated by standard formability tests. Different categories of industrial sheet parts were simulated, and an expert system was developed to predict their forming behavior. Figure 2 shows that the expert system was given inputs such as thickness ratio, strength ratio, weld orientation, weld location, weld properties, weld width, number of welds, and weld profile. Forming behavior, such as tensile behavior, deep drawability, and forming limit, was predicted. The expert system was updated with respect to base materials and formability prediction and criteria used for the prediction.” – All of these elements are used as inputs to the modeling. Page 14, Third Column, Expert System Development “For this work, the researchers used artificial neural network (ANN) to develop the expert system for predicting TWB forming behavior. ANN was trained to learn arbitrary nonlinear relationships between input and output parameters of TWBs, which can be used for obtaining deformation behavior of TWBs for any given input property combinations. The data required for ANN training was obtained from simulations using PAM STAMP® 2G, an elastoplastic finite element code.” – As part of the analysis to train the neural network, the entire system, including both of the sheets and the weld bead, are modeled using finite element analysis to determine final properties of part formed by pressing the tailored welded blank.
performing press-forming analysis using the analysis model data to calculate deformation of the elements for the first sheet, the second sheet and the weld bead when the tailored blank is press formed; and (Ganesh Page 14, Forming Properties That Can Be Predicted “This research work involved aluminum sheet base material and weld region properties as shown in Figure 3. Seven significant TWB parameters were chosen as input to the expert system (see Figure 4) for deep-drawing behavior and tensile behavior prediction. The standard ASTM E646-98 sample was used for simulating the tensile behavior of TWBs. In the case of deep drawing of TWBs, a square-cup deep-drawing simulation was constructed as per the NUMISHEET ’93 benchmark specifications The tensile response of TWBs— namely, stress-strain curve, yield strength, ultimate tensile strength, uniform elongation, strain hardening exponent (n), and strength coefficient (K—was evaluated and predicted by the expert system. The deep-drawing behaviors monitored were: •Maximum punch force—obtained from force-progression data during deep-drawing simulation. •Maximum weld line movement— considered of practical importance, as the weld region ideally should be located in the safe region of the drawn cup. •Draw depth—obtained after cup failure was witnessed. •Draw-in profile—quantified by the dimensions DX, DY, and DD. The draw-in profile is important and can be related to anisotropic sheet properties and earring behavior of sheet metal. In the case of steel TWBs, the initial shape of the blank also was considered as input to the expert system, and the entire weld line profile was predicted during deep drawing. In this case, the expert system was able to predict the forming limit strains of the TWBs. – The press-forming analysis is conducted using simulation, where the elements undergo stress and the representative drawn model updates the geometries of the sheets and the weld bead of the TWB. Again, this is performed using finite element analysis.)
deciding on a design value of a width of the weld bead for each of positions along a longitudinal direction of the weld bead in the tailored blank prior to press forming based on a press-forming-induced change in a width relating to the elements for the weld bead obtained through calculation of the deformation of the elements for the first sheet, the second sheet, and the weld bead when the tailored blank is press formed at the press-forming analysis step, to generate bead-width design data indicating a relationship between a position along the longitudinal direction of the weld bead and the design value of the width of the weld bead in the tailored blank prior to press forming; and (Ganesh Page 15, Figure 4 and Page 14, Forming Properties That Can Be Predicted “Seven significant TWB parameters were chosen as input to the expert system (see Figure 4) for deep-drawing behavior and tensile behavior prediction. The standard ASTM E646-98 sample was used for simulating the tensile behavior of TWBs. […] The tensile response of TWBs— namely, stress-strain curve, yield strength, ultimate tensile strength, uniform elongation, strain hardening exponent (n), and strength coefficient (K—was evaluated and predicted by the expert system. The deep-drawing behaviors monitored were: •Maximum punch force—obtained from force-progression data during deep-drawing simulation. •Maximum weld line movement— considered of practical importance, as the weld region ideally should be located in the safe region of the drawn cup. •Draw depth—obtained after cup failure was witnessed. •Draw-in profile—quantified by the dimensions DX, DY, and DD. The draw-in profile is important and can be related to anisotropic sheet properties and earring behavior of sheet metal.” – The system is trained to output a weld line movement (“bead-width design data indicating a relationships between a position along the longitudinal direction of the weld bead and thee design value of the width of the weld bead”) based on an input of weld bead width (W) (“a design value of a width of the weld bead for each of positions along a longitudinal direction of the weld bead in the tailored blank prior to press-forming”) based on the FEM simulation of the weld line movement. Page 13, Expert System for TWB Formability “Automotive sheet forming engineers can use an expert system to determine a TWB’s forming behavior. An expert system is an intelligent computer program which, like a human consultant, aims to deliver accurate suggestions for solving a problem at any level, such as during planning, designing, manufacturing, and quality control. Researchers have been developing an expert system for TWBs that can predict their tensile, deep-drawing, and forming behaviors under varied base material and weld conditions using different formability tests and criteria and different material models. Expert systems might be used to determine the best material combinations and weld conditions for making successful TWBs, without the need for simulation and experimental trials.” See Also Figure 2 on Page 14 – The critical weld line movement depends on the weld thickness, so, when the model is deployed for inference, the model will be used to determine bead widths (when the other parameters are determined) that yield the appropriate weld line movement. When looking at the inputs in FIG. 2, they include an initial bead width. The output includes weld line movement, which is the difference between the initial width and the final width. This means the design is created to determine initial parameters (including initial bead width) to output a desired output width (represented by the initial bead width and accounting for the weld line movement). Further still, the weld line movement, when accounting for the initial input width, is the design width along all lengths of the welds, longitudinal or otherwise. This is a base function of finite element analysis and will be represented in a machine learning model designed to mimic the output of the finite element analysis.)
PNG
media_image1.png
302
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
901
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
performing a welding process based on the bead-width design data that was generated. (Ganesh Page 13, Middle Column, Third Paragraph “Researchers have been developing an expert system for TWBs that can predict their tensile, deep-drawing, and forming behaviors under varied base material and weld conditions using different formability tests and criteria and different material models. Expert systems might be used to determine the best material combinations and weld conditions for making successful TWBs, without the need for simulation and experimental trials.”)
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, Ganesh teaches the features of claim 1, and further teaches:
further comprising: press forming the tailored blank to manufacture a press-formed product including weld beads having the width based on the bead-width design data that was generated. (Ganesh Page 1, Left Column, First Paragraph – Middle Column, Third Paragraph “Tailor welded blanks (TWBs) (see Figure 1) are blanks with two or more sheets of different thicknesses, materials, or coatings welded in a single plane before forming. Aluminum TWBs are used commonly in the automotive sector, for which they are formed into sheet components for hoods, floor and door inner panels, and side frame rails. Researchers have been developing an expert system for TWBs that can predict their tensile, deep-drawing, and forming behaviors under varied base material and weld conditions using different formability tests and criteria and different material models. Expert systems might be used to determine the best material combinations and weld conditions for making successful TWBs, without the need for simulation and experimental trials.” – The design data is used to manufacture the TWBs. Page 2, Middle Column, Third-Fourth Paragraphs “The deep-drawing behaviors monitored were: •Maximum punch force—obtained from force-progression data during deep-drawing simulation.” – The manufacture includes the press forming/punch force. Page 2, Figure 2 (Shown Below) – This shows that the initial width of the weld prior to pressing and the weld line movement, which represents the final width of the weld after pressing, in each iteration, are both design specifications. NOTE: As mentioned in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection, the claim is unclear as to which claimed width is claimed from claim 1. That said, in the interest of compact prosecution, this is presented with mapping that covers all widths of the weld bead represented in the claims.)
PNG
media_image3.png
894
707
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 13
Regarding claim 13, Ganesh teaches the features of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein generating bead-width design data accounts for press-forming-induced changes in the width of the weld bead in the tailored blank to bring the width of the weld bead in the press-formed product closer to a target width. (Ganesh Page 2, Middle Column, Third Paragraphs – Right Column, First Three Bullets “The deep-drawing behaviors monitored were: •Maximum punch force—obtained from force-progression data during deep-drawing simulation.” •Maximum weld line movement— considered of practical importance, as the weld region ideally should be located in the safe region of the drawn cup. •Draw depth—obtained after cup failure was witnessed. •Draw-in profile—quantified by the dimensions DX, DY, and DD. The draw-in profile is important and can be related to anisotropic sheet properties and earring behavior of sheet metal.– The design includes press-forming induced changes. Figure 2 – The press forces are modeled as stress-strain responses in all dimensions, including along the weld bead, in finite element. This is modeled for the machine learning training to train the model to mimic the analysis by the finite element model. Figure two demonstrates a design input of the weld bead width and a final design width based on the weld line movement.)
PNG
media_image4.png
890
703
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 14
Regarding claim 14, Ganesh teaches the features of claim 1, and further teaches:
bringing an edge of a tailored blank first sheet and an edge of a tailored blank second sheet into butt welding position and moving a fusion location forward along a butt line to weld the edge of the tailored blank first sheet and the edge of the tailored blank second sheet, the fusion location being moved forward while controlling an amount of heat input for fusing based on the bead-width design data that was generated. (Ganesh Page 1, Left Column, First Paragraph – Middle Column, Third Paragraph “Tailor welded blanks (TWBs) (see Figure 1) are blanks with two or more sheets of different thicknesses, materials, or coatings welded in a single plane before forming. Aluminum TWBs are used commonly in the automotive sector, for which they are formed into sheet components for hoods, floor and door inner panels, and side frame rails. Researchers have been developing an expert system for TWBs that can predict their tensile, deep-drawing, and forming behaviors under varied base material and weld conditions using different formability tests and criteria and different material models. Expert systems might be used to determine the best material combinations and weld conditions for making successful TWBs, without the need for simulation and experimental trials.” – The design data is used to manufacture the TWBs, which are formed by bringing an edge of a tailored blank first sheet and an edge of a tailored blank second sheet into butt welding position and moving a fusion location forward along a butt line to weld the edge of the tailored blank first sheet and the edge of the tailored blank second sheet, the fusion location being moved forward while controlling an amount of heat input for fusing, the product of which is shown in Figure 1. Page 2, Middle Column, Third-Fourth Paragraphs “The deep-drawing behaviors monitored were: •Maximum punch force—obtained from force-progression data during deep-drawing simulation.” – The manufacture includes the press forming/punch force. Page 2, Figure 2 (Shown Below) – This shows that the initial width of the weld prior to pressing and the weld line movement, which represents the final width of the weld after pressing, in each iteration, are both design specifications. These are used to determine how a TWB is welded prior to press forming in the manufacturing process.)
PNG
media_image5.png
326
329
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
890
703
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 15
Regarding claim 15, Ganesh teaches the features of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the bead-width design data indicates a distribution of the design value of the width of the weld bead along the longitudinal direction of the weld bead. (Ganesh Page 1, Left Column, First Paragraph – Middle Column, Third Paragraph “Tailor welded blanks (TWBs) (see Figure 1) are blanks with two or more sheets of different thicknesses, materials, or coatings welded in a single plane before forming. Aluminum TWBs are used commonly in the automotive sector, for which they are formed into sheet components for hoods, floor and door inner panels, and side frame rails. Researchers have been developing an expert system for TWBs that can predict their tensile, deep-drawing, and forming behaviors under varied base material and weld conditions using different formability tests and criteria and different material models. Expert systems might be used to determine the best material combinations and weld conditions for making successful TWBs, without the need for simulation and experimental trials.” – The design data is used to manufacture the TWBs. Page 2, Middle Column, Third-Fourth Paragraphs “The deep-drawing behaviors monitored were: •Maximum punch force—obtained from force-progression data during deep-drawing simulation.” – The manufacture includes the press forming/punch force. Page 2, Figure 2 (Shown Below) – This shows that the initial width of the weld prior to pressing and the weld line movement, which represents the final width of the weld after pressing, in each iteration, are both design specifications. The weld line movement, relative to the original thickness provides the relationship of the distribution of the design value of the bead along all directions of the weld bead, including a longitudinal direction, as modeled in the finite element process.)
Claim 16
Regarding claim 16, Ganesh teaches the features of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the bead-width design data indicates how to set a width of the weld bead for each of positions along the longitudinal direction of the weld bead. (Ganesh Page 1, Left Column, First Paragraph – Middle Column, Third Paragraph “Tailor welded blanks (TWBs) (see Figure 1) are blanks with two or more sheets of different thicknesses, materials, or coatings welded in a single plane before forming. Aluminum TWBs are used commonly in the automotive sector, for which they are formed into sheet components for hoods, floor and door inner panels, and side frame rails. Researchers have been developing an expert system for TWBs that can predict their tensile, deep-drawing, and forming behaviors under varied base material and weld conditions using different formability tests and criteria and different material models. Expert systems might be used to determine the best material combinations and weld conditions for making successful TWBs, without the need for simulation and experimental trials.” – The design data is used to manufacture the TWBs. Page 2, Middle Column, Third-Fourth Paragraphs “The deep-drawing behaviors monitored were: •Maximum punch force—obtained from force-progression data during deep-drawing simulation.” – The manufacture includes the press forming/punch force. Page 2, Figure 2 (Shown Below) – This shows that the initial width of the weld prior to pressing and the weld line movement, which represents the final width of the weld after pressing, in each iteration, are both design specifications. The weld line movement, relative to the original thickness provides the relationship of the distribution of the design value of the bead along all directions of the weld bead, including a longitudinal direction, as modeled in the finite element process.)
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.
Claims 2-3: Ganesh and Cook
Claim(s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL: “Determining the forming behavior of tailor welded blanks” by Ganesh et al. (Ganesh) in view of NPL: “Iterative linear solvers as metaphor” by Cook (Cook).
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, Ganesh teaches the features of claim 1 and further teaches:
wherein the acquiring of the analysis model data, the performing of the press-forming analysis, and the deciding on the design value of the width of the weld bead, are repeatedly performed in two or more rounds; and (NOTE This is a mere repetition of the respective steps of the independent claim and is rejected for the same reasons as those steps.)
the acquiring of the analysis model data from a second round onward acquires analysis model data containing the elements for the weld bead with a width based on the bead width design data . (Ganesh Page 15, Figure 4 and Page 14, Forming Properties That Can Be Predicted “Seven significant TWB parameters were chosen as input to the expert system (see Figure 4) for deep-drawing behavior and tensile behavior prediction. The standard ASTM E646-98 sample was used for simulating the tensile behavior of TWBs. […] The tensile response of TWBs— namely, stress-strain curve, yield strength, ultimate tensile strength, uniform elongation, strain hardening exponent (n), and strength coefficient (K—was evaluated and predicted by the expert system. The deep-drawing behaviors monitored were: •Maximum punch force—obtained from force-progression data during deep-drawing simulation. •Maximum weld line movement— considered of practical importance, as the weld region ideally should be located in the safe region of the drawn cup. •Draw depth—obtained after cup failure was witnessed. •Draw-in profile—quantified by the dimensions DX, DY, and DD. The draw-in profile is important and can be related to anisotropic sheet properties and earring behavior of sheet metal.” – The system is trained to output a weld line movement (“bead-width design data indicating a relationships between a position along the longitudinal direction of the weld bead and thee design value of the width of the weld bead”) based on an input of weld bead width (W) (“a design value of a width of the weld bead for each of positions along a longitudinal direction of the weld bead in the tailored blank prior to press-forming”) based on the FEM simulation of the weld line movement. Page 13, Expert System for TWB Formability “Automotive sheet forming engineers can use an expert system to determine a TWB’s forming behavior. An expert system is an intelligent computer program which, like a human consultant, aims to deliver accurate suggestions for solving a problem at any level, such as during planning, designing, manufacturing, and quality control. Researchers have been developing an expert system for TWBs that can predict their tensile, deep-drawing, and forming behaviors under varied base material and weld conditions using different formability tests and criteria and different material models. Expert systems might be used to determine the best material combinations and weld conditions for making successful TWBs, without the need for simulation and experimental trials. – The critical weld line movement depends on the weld thickness, so, when the model is deployed for inference, the model will be used to determine bead widths (when the other parameters are determined) that yield the appropriate weld line movement. Also, See Ganesh FIG. 2 for iterative approaches to design.)
PNG
media_image6.png
905
717
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Ganesh teaches that a model can be used to predict the properties of a tailored blank after being pressed based on an input of the weld bead width and other factors and asserts that the model is useful for determining the design parameters prior to pressing, but it does not specifically teach, but Ganesh in view of Cook teaches:
the model acquisition step from a second round onward acquires analysis model data containing the elements for the weld bead with a width based on the bead width design data that was generated in a previous round. (Cook “Iterative methods start by taking a guess at the final solution. In some contexts, this guess may be fairly good. For example, when solving differential equations, the solution from one time step gives a good initial guess at the solution for the next time step. Similarly, in sequential Bayesian analysis the posterior distribution mode doesn’t move much as each observation arrives. Iterative methods can take advantage of a good starting guess while methods like Gaussian elimination cannot. Iterative methods take an initial guess and refine it to a better approximation to the solution. This sequence of approximations converges to the exact solution. In theory, Gaussian elimination produces an exact answer in a finite number of steps, but iterative methods never produce an exact solution after any finite number of steps. But in actual computation with finite precision arithmetic, no method, iterative or not, ever produces an exact answer. The question is not which method is exact but which method produces an acceptably accurate answer first. Often the iterative method wins.” – Cook discusses using a trial and error interactive approach to arrive at a solution. In combination with Ganesh, Cook teaches trying different values of weld bead width (and other parameters) to get a specific output of weld line movement.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claims to modify the use of a rendered model for determining weld parameters of Ganesh by the trial and error method of determining a desired set of parameters of Cook because the person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by the stated desire in Ganesh to make a functional model to determine parameters for a mathematical system to look to Cook to utilize the model through trial and error to determine acceptably accurate design specifications, including a weld bead width, that often beats other methods of determination. (Ganesh Page 13, First Column, Last Paragraph – Second Column, Second Paragraph “The forming behavior of TWBs is influenced by several parameters, including thickness and strength differences between the sheets being welded; weld conditions such as weld properties, orientation, and location; number of welds; welding technique; and weld profile and microstructure. Predicting the TWB’s parameters in advance can help the fabricator determine its formability compared to that of unwelded base material. However, this prediction requires a lot of experimental and simulation trials for each case, which is time-consuming and resource intensive. Automotive sheet forming engineers can use an expert system to determine a TWB’s forming behavior. An expert system is an intelligent computer program which, like a human consultant, aims to deliver accurate suggestions for solving a problem at any level, such as during planning, designing, manufacturing, and quality control.; Cook Page 1, Third-Fourth Paragraphs “Iterative methods start by taking a guess at the final solution. In some contexts, this guess may be fairly good. For example, when solving differential equations, the solution from one time step gives a good initial guess at the solution for the next time step. Similarly, in sequential Bayesian analysis the posterior distribution mode doesn’t move much as each observation arrives. Iterative methods can take advantage of a good starting guess while methods like Gaussian elimination cannot. Iterative methods take an initial guess and refine it to a better approximation to the solution. This sequence of approximations converges to the exact solution. In theory, Gaussian elimination produces an exact answer in a finite number of steps, but iterative methods never produce an exact solution after any finite number of steps. But in actual computation with finite precision arithmetic, no method, iterative or not, ever produces an exact answer. The question is not which method is exact but which method produces an acceptably accurate answer first. Often the iterative method wins.”)
Claim 3
Ganesh teaches the features of claim 1, and further teaches:
a join-line-containing-model acquisition step for acquiring join-line-containing analysis model data representing a tailored blank having a first sheet and a second sheet joined together, the join-line-containing model data containing elements for the first sheet and elements for the second sheet and including a join line for the first and second sheets, the elements for the first sheet and the elements for the second sheet being in contact along the join line; (Ganesh Page 14, Third Column, Expert System Development “For this work, the researchers used artificial neural network (ANN) to develop the expert system for predicting TWB forming behavior. ANN was trained to learn arbitrary nonlinear relationships between input and output parameters of TWBs, which can be used for obtaining deformation behavior of TWBs for any given input property combinations. The data required for ANN training was obtained from simulations using PAM STAMP® 2G, an elastoplastic finite element code. – The system models the deformation of the tailored blank along the join-line during pressing with finite element analysis.
a previous-press-forming analysis step for performing press-forming analysis using the join-line-containing analysis model data to calculate deformation of the elements for the first and second sheets when the tailored blank represented by the join-line-containing analysis model data is press formed; and (Ganesh “Page 14, Forming Properties That Can Be Predicted “This research work involved aluminum sheet base material and weld region properties as shown in Figure 3. Seven significant TWB parameters were chosen as input to the expert system (see Figure 4) for deep-drawing behavior and tensile behavior prediction. The standard ASTM E646-98 sample was used for simulating the tensile behavior of TWBs. In the case of deep drawing of TWBs, a square-cup deep-drawing simulation was constructed as per the NUMISHEET ’93 benchmark specifications The tensile response of TWBs— namely, stress-strain curve, yield strength, ultimate tensile strength, uniform elongation, strain hardening exponent (n), and strength coefficient (K—was evaluated and predicted by the expert system. The deep-drawing behaviors monitored were: •Maximum punch force—obtained from force-progression data during deep-drawing simulation. •Maximum weld line movement— considered of practical importance, as the weld region ideally should be located in the safe region of the drawn cup. •Draw depth—obtained after cup failure was witnessed. •Draw-in profile—quantified by the dimensions DX, DY, and DD. The draw-in profile is important and can be related to anisotropic sheet properties and earring behavior of sheet metal. In the case of steel TWBs, the initial shape of the blank also was considered as input to the expert system, and the entire weld line profile was predicted during deep drawing. In this case, the expert system was able to predict the forming limit strains of the TWBs. – The press-forming analysis is conducted using simulation, where the elements undergo stress and the representative drawn model updates the geometries of the sheets and the weld bead of the TWB. Again, this is performed using finite element analysis.)
an initial value generation step for deciding on an initial value of the width of the weld bead corresponding to the join line based on a press-forming-induced change in a width relating to elements for the first and second sheets on both sides of the join line obtained through the calculation at the -press-forming analysis step to generate initial value data indicating a relationship between a position along the longitudinal direction of the weld bead and the initial value of the width of the weld bead, (Ganesh Page 15, Figure 4 and Page 14, Forming Properties That Can Be Predicted “Seven significant TWB parameters were chosen as input to the expert system (see Figure 4) for deep-drawing behavior and tensile behavior prediction. The standard ASTM E646-98 sample was used for simulating the tensile behavior of TWBs. […] The tensile response of TWBs— namely, stress-strain curve, yield strength, ultimate tensile strength, uniform elongation, strain hardening exponent (n), and strength coefficient (K—was evaluated and predicted by the expert system. The deep-drawing behaviors monitored were: •Maximum punch force—obtained from force-progression data during deep-drawing simulation. •Maximum weld line movement— considered of practical importance, as the weld region ideally should be located in the safe region of the drawn cup. •Draw depth—obtained after cup failure was witnessed. •Draw-in profile—quantified by the dimensions DX, DY, and DD. The draw-in profile is important and can be related to anisotropic sheet properties and earring behavior of sheet metal.” – The study determined, as shown in Figure 4, that different weld bead widths were selected to try on the basis of determining weld line movement, among other parameters. The entirety of the system is drawn, including the sheets and the weld bead, which define the weld line. This includes a calculation that uses the weld bead width at each position along the longitudinal length of the weld.)
wherein the model acquisition step acquires the analysis model data containing the elements for the weld bead with a width . (Ganesh Page 15, Figure 4 and Page 14, Forming Properties That Can Be Predicted “Seven significant TWB parameters were chosen as input to the expert system (see Figure 4) for deep-drawing behavior and tensile behavior prediction. The standard ASTM E646-98 sample was used for simulating the tensile behavior of TWBs. […] The tensile response of TWBs— namely, stress-strain curve, yield strength, ultimate tensile strength, uniform elongation, strain hardening exponent (n), and strength coefficient (K—was evaluated and predicted by the expert system. The deep-drawing behaviors monitored were: •Maximum punch force—obtained from force-progression data during deep-drawing simulation. •Maximum weld line movement— considered of practical importance, as the weld region ideally should be located in the safe region of the drawn cup. •Draw depth—obtained after cup failure was witnessed. •Draw-in profile—quantified by the dimensions DX, DY, and DD. The draw-in profile is important and can be related to anisotropic sheet properties and earring behavior of sheet metal.” – The study determined, as shown in Figure 4, that different weld bead widths were selected to try on the basis of determining weld line movement, among other parameters. The entirety of the system is drawn, including the sheets and the weld bead, which define the weld line. This includes a calculation that uses the weld bead width at each position along the longitudinal length of the weld.)
Ganesh teaches that a model can be used to predict the properties of a tailored blank after being pressed based on an input of the weld bead width and other factors and asserts that the model is useful for determining the design parameters prior to pressing, but it does not specifically teach, but Ganesh in view of Cook teaches:
an initial value generation step for deciding on an initial value of the width of the weld bead corresponding to the join line based on a press-forming-induced change in a width relating to elements for the first and second sheets on both sides of the join line obtained through the calculation at the previous based on the initial value data generated at the initial value generation step. (Cook “Iterative methods start by taking a guess at the final solution. In some contexts, this guess may be fairly good. For example, when solving differential equations, the solution from one time step gives a good initial guess at the solution for the next time step. Similarly, in sequential Bayesian analysis the posterior distribution mode doesn’t move much as each observation arrives. Iterative methods can take advantage of a good starting guess while methods like Gaussian elimination cannot. Iterative methods take an initial guess and refine it to a better approximation to the solution. This sequence of approximations converges to the exact solution. In theory, Gaussian elimination produces an exact answer in a finite number of steps, but iterative methods never produce an exact solution after any finite number of steps. But in actual computation with finite precision arithmetic, no method, iterative or not, ever produces an exact answer. The question is not which method is exact but which method produces an acceptably accurate answer first. Often the iterative method wins.” – Cook discusses using a trial and error interactive approach to arrive at a solution. In combination with Ganesh, Cook teaches trying different values of weld bead width (and other parameters) to get a specific output of weld line movement.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claims to modify the use of a rendered model for determining weld parameters of Ganesh by the trial and error method of determining a desired set of parameters of Cook because the person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by the stated desire in Ganesh to make a functional model to determine parameters for a mathematical system to look to Cook to utilize the model through trial and error to determine acceptably accurate design specifications, including a weld bead width, that often beats other methods of determination. (Ganesh Page 13, First Column, Last Paragraph – Second Column, Second Paragraph “The forming behavior of TWBs is influenced by several parameters, including thickness and strength differences between the sheets being welded; weld conditions such as weld properties, orientation, and location; number of welds; welding technique; and weld profile and microstructure. Predicting the TWB’s parameters in advance can help the fabricator determine its formability compared to that of unwelded base material. However, this prediction requires a lot of experimental and simulation trials for each case, which is time-consuming and resource intensive. Automotive sheet forming engineers can use an expert system to determine a TWB’s forming behavior. An expert system is an intelligent computer program which, like a human consultant, aims to deliver accurate suggestions for solving a problem at any level, such as during planning, designing, manufacturing, and quality control.; Cook Page 1, Third-Fourth Paragraphs “Iterative methods start by taking a guess at the final solution. In some contexts, this guess may be fairly good. For example, when solving differential equations, the solution from one time step gives a good initial guess at the solution for the next time step. Similarly, in sequential Bayesian analysis the posterior distribution mode doesn’t move much as each observation arrives. Iterative methods can take advantage of a good starting guess while methods like Gaussian elimination cannot. Iterative methods take an initial guess and refine it to a better approximation to the solution. This sequence of approximations converges to the exact solution. In theory, Gaussian elimination produces an exact answer in a finite number of steps, but iterative methods never produce an exact solution after any finite number of steps. But in actual computation with finite precision arithmetic, no method, iterative or not, ever produces an exact answer. The question is not which method is exact but which method produces an acceptably accurate answer first. Often the iterative method wins.”)
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(From Current Office Action)
NPL: “Estimation of Tailor-welded Blank Parameters for Acceptable Tensile Behaviour using ANN” by Dhumal et al. (Teaches the claim elements and is similar to Ganesh, who is also an author)
NPL: “A New Surface Inspection Method of TWBS Based on Active Laser-triangulation” by Zhang et al. (Teaches specific TWB design specifications present in the Applicant’s specification)
US 20210354248 A1 to Fujimoto et al. (Teaches general details of TWB manufacture and design)
(From Prior Office Action)
NPL: “Spot-Weld Fatigue optimization” by Anderson et al. (Teaches different considerations for spot welds, including for tailored blanks)
NPL: “An inverse approach to the numerical design of the process sequence of tailored heat treated blanks” by Geiger et al. (Teaches modeling the effect of press-forming on a weld bead)
NPL: “Optimizing weld morphology and mechanical properties of laser welded Al-Si coated 22MnB5 by surface application of colloidal graphite” by Khan et al. (Teaches weld morphology optimization)
NPL: “Welding Methods and Forming Characteristics of Tailored Blanks (TBs)” by Miyazaki et al. (Teaches aspects of formation of tailored blanks)
NPL: “Prediction of weld bead geometry and penetration in shielded metal-arc welding using artificial neural networks” by Nagesh et al. (Teaches using neural networks to predict weld bead geometry)
NPL: “An Analytical Model to Predict Elongation of Tailor Welded Blanks [TWB]” by Patel et al. (Teaches predicting press forming effects based on the weld bead of a tailor welded blank)
NPL: “Forming of Tailor-Welded Blanks” by Saunders et al. (Teaches aspects of how tailor welded blanks are originally formed and pressed)
NPL: “Bead geometry prediction for robotic GMAW-based rapid manufacturing through a neural network and a second-order regression analysis” by Xiong et al. (Teaches using a neural network to predict weld bead geometry)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY MICHAEL WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-7073. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:00-7:00 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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.M.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights