DETAILED ACTION
The office action is responsive to an application filed on 6/22/23 and is being
examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 8, 9 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: The
variables in the equations mentioned in claims 6, 8, 9 and 11 are not defined within the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims covers performance of the limitation in the mind or by pencil and paper and as a mathematical concept.
Claims 1, 13 and 17
Regarding step 1, claims 1, 13 and 17 are directed towards a method and system which has the claims fall within the eligible statutory categories of processes, machines, manufactures and composition of matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites “determining a wrinkling index (WI) for the stamped part in response to the processor producing the computer simulation”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “determining whether an element under analysis is located at a trimmed edge of the stamped part”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “when the element under analysis is located at a trimmed edge of the stamped part, determining a stretching index (SI) for a trimmed edge portion in response to the processor producing the computer simulation, or when the element under analysis is not located at a trimmed edge of the stamped part”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “determining a SI for a plane stress portion in response to the processor producing the computer simulation”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “comparing the SI to a SI threshold and/or comparing the SI to the WI”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “and generating a uniform failure index (UFI) equal to the SI in response to the processor determining that the SI is greater than the SI threshold”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “a UFI equal to the SI in response to the processor determining that the SI index is less than the SI threshold and is greater than the absolute value of the WI”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “and a UFI equal to the WI in response to the processor determining that the SI is less than SI threshold and is less than the absolute value of the WI.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “receiving, using the processor, data for the stamped part” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “producing, using the processor, a computer simulation based on the data” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the computer simulation is simulating. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) 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".
Also, the limitation of “and generating, using the processor, a uniform failure index (UFI) equal to the SI in response to the processor determining that the SI is greater than the SI threshold” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the uniform failure index (UFI) is or how it’s associated with the stretching failure index (SI). See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) 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".
Also, the limitation of “a UFI equal to the SI in response to the processor determining that the SI index is less than the SI threshold and is greater than the absolute value of the WI” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the uniform failure index (UFI) is or how it’s associated with the wrinkling index (WI). See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) 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".
Also, the limitation of “and a UFI equal to the WI in response to the processor determining that the SI is less than SI threshold and is less than the absolute value of the WI.” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the uniform failure index (UFI) is or how it’s associated with the stretching failure index (SI) and the wrinkling index (WI). See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) 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".
Further, the claim includes the additional element of a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “receiving, using the processor, data for the stamped part” is also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the limitation of “producing, using the processor, a computer simulation based on the data” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the computer simulation is simulating. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) 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".
Also, the limitation of “and generating, using the processor, a uniform failure index (UFI) equal to the SI in response to the processor determining that the SI is greater than the SI threshold” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the uniform failure index (UFI) is or how it’s associated with the stretching failure index (SI). See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) 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".
Also, the limitation of “a UFI equal to the SI in response to the processor determining that the SI index is less than the SI threshold and is greater than the absolute value of the WI” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the uniform failure index (UFI) is or how it’s associated with the wrinkling index (WI). See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) 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".
Also, the limitation of “and a UFI equal to the WI in response to the processor determining that the SI is less than SI threshold and is less than the absolute value of the WI.” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the uniform failure index (UFI) is or how it’s associated with the stretching failure index (SI) and the wrinkling index (WI). See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) 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".
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the processor amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 13
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 13 recites “determine a wrinkling index for the stamped part in response to the processor producing the computer simulation”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 13 recites “determine whether an element under analysis is located at a trimmed edge of the stamped part”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 13 recites “determine a stretching index (SI) for a trimmed edge portion when the element under analysis is located at a trimmed edge of the stamped part”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 13 recites “determine a SI for a plane stress portion when the element under analysis is not located at a trimmed edge of the stamped part”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 13 recites “compare the SI to a SI threshold and/or compare the SI to the WI”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 13 recites “and generate a UFI equal to the SI in response to determining that the SI is greater than the index threshold”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 13 recites “generate a UFI equal to the SI in response to determining that the SI is not greater than the SI threshold and is greater than the absolute value of the WI, or generate a UFI equal to the WI in response to determining that the SI is not greater than the SI threshold and is not greater than the absolute value of the WI”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “receive, data for the stamped part” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “produce a computer simulation based on the data” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the computer simulation is simulating. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) 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".
Also, the limitation of “and generate a UFI equal to the SI in response to determining that the SI is greater than the index threshold”. amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the uniform failure index (UFI) is or how it’s associated with the stretching failure index (SI). See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) 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".
Also, the limitation of “generate a UFI equal to the SI in response to determining that the SI is not greater than the SI threshold and is greater than the absolute value of the WI, or generate a UFI equal to the WI in response to determining that the SI is not greater than the SI threshold and is not greater than the absolute value of the WI” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the uniform failure index (UFI) is or how it’s associated with the stretching failure index (SI) and the wrinkling index (WI). See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) 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".
Also, the limitation of “and a display device electrically coupled to the processor and configured to visually indicate the SIs and the WIs associated with the computer simulation.” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the claim includes the additional element of a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitations of “receive, data for the stamped part” and “and a display device electrically coupled to the processor and configured to visually indicate the SIs and the WIs associated with the computer simulation.” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the limitation of “produce a computer simulation based on the data” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the computer simulation is simulating. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) 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".
Also, the limitation of “and generate a UFI equal to the SI in response to determining that the SI is greater than the index threshold”. amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the uniform failure index (UFI) is or how it’s associated with the stretching failure index (SI). See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) 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".
Also, the limitation of “generate a UFI equal to the SI in response to determining that the SI is not greater than the SI threshold and is greater than the absolute value of the WI, or generate a UFI equal to the WI in response to determining that the SI is not greater than the SI threshold and is not greater than the absolute value of the WI” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the uniform failure index (UFI) is or how it’s associated with the stretching failure index (SI) and the wrinkling index (WI). See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) 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".
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the processor amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 17
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 17 recites “determine a stretching index (SI) for an associated one of the bead affect portion, the trimmed edge portion, and the plane stress portion of the workpiece in response to the processor producing the computer simulation”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 17 recites “compare the SI for each of the bead affect portion, the trimmed edge portion, and the plane stress portion to an SI threshold”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 17 recites “determine a wrinkling index for the workpiece in response to the processor producing the computer simulation”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 17 recites “compare the WI to a WI threshold”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 17 recites “determine an altered SI for an associated one of the bead affect portion, the trimmed edge portion, and the plane stress portion of the workpiece in response to the processor producing the altered computer simulation”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 17 recites “determine an WI for the workpiece in response to the processor producing the altered computer simulation”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “receive data for at least one of a die design, a part design, and a stamping process plan associated with the workpiece” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “produce a computer simulation based on the data” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the computer simulation is simulating. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) 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".
Also, the limitation of “and generate a stretching failure signal in response to the processor determining that the SI for at least one of the bead affect portion, the trimmed edge portion, and the plane stress portion is greater than the SI threshold” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the stretching failure signal is being used for of how it’s being made known. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) 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".
Also, the limitation of “and generate a wrinkling failure signal in response to the processor determining that the WI is less than the WI threshold” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the wrinkling failure signal is being used for of how it’s being made known. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) 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".
Also, the limitation of “receive altered data for at least one of an altered die design, an altered part design, and an altered stamping process plan associated with the workpiece” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “produce an altered computer simulation based on the altered data” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the computer simulation is simulating. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) 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".
Also, the limitation of “and generate a stretching acceptance signal in response to the processor determining that one of the SI and the altered SI for each of the bead affect portion, the trimmed edge portion, and the plane stress portion is not greater than the SI threshold” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the stretching failure signal is being used for of how it’s being made known. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) 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".
Also, the limitation of “and generate a wrinkling acceptance signal in response to the processor determining that one of the WI and the altered WI is less than the WI threshold” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the wrinkling failure signal is being used for of how it’s being made known. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) 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".
Also, the limitation of “and a display device electrically coupled to the processor and configured to: indicate that the workpiece has a fracture and/or a wrinkle and to prompt a user to input the altered data into the processor, in response to the display device receiving the stretching failure signal and/or the wrinkling failure signal” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the altered data is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) 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".
This limitation also amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “and a display device electrically coupled to the processor and configured to: indicate that the workpiece does not have the fracture and/or the wrinkle in response to the display device receiving the stretching acceptance signal and/or the wrinkling acceptance signal, such that the processor sends the stretching acceptance signal and/or the wrinkling acceptance signal to a die manufacturing device for transforming a tool material into the die associated with one of the SI and the altered SI that is less than the SI threshold and with one of the WI and the altered WI that is greater than the WI threshold.” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the claim includes the additional element of a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitations of “receive data for at least one of a die design, a part design, and a stamping process plan associated with the workpiece” and “receive altered data for at least one of an altered die design, an altered part design, and an altered stamping process plan associated with the workpiece” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the limitation of “produce a computer simulation based on the data” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the computer simulation is simulating. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) 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".
Also, the limitation of “and generate a stretching failure signal in response to the processor determining that the SI for at least one of the bead affect portion, the trimmed edge portion, and the plane stress portion is greater than the SI threshold” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the stretching failure signal is being used for of how it’s being made known. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) 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".
Also, the limitation of “and generate a wrinkling failure signal in response to the processor determining that the WI is less than the WI threshold” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the wrinkling failure signal is being used for of how it’s being made known. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) 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".
Also, the limitation of “produce an altered computer simulation based on the altered data” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the computer simulation is simulating. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) 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".
Also, the limitation of “and generate a stretching acceptance signal in response to the processor determining that one of the SI and the altered SI for each of the bead affect portion, the trimmed edge portion, and the plane stress portion is not greater than the SI threshold” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the stretching failure signal is being used for of how it’s being made known. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) 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".
Also, the limitation of “and generate a wrinkling acceptance signal in response to the processor determining that one of the WI and the altered WI is less than the WI threshold” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the wrinkling failure signal is being used for of how it’s being made known. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) 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".
Also, the limitation of “and a display device electrically coupled to the processor and configured to: indicate that the workpiece has a fracture and/or a wrinkle and to prompt a user to input the altered data into the processor, in response to the display device receiving the stretching failure signal and/or the wrinkling failure signal” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the altered data is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) 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".
This limitation is also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the limitation of “and a display device electrically coupled to the processor and configured to: indicate that the workpiece does not have the fracture and/or the wrinkle in response to the display device receiving the stretching acceptance signal and/or the wrinkling acceptance signal, such that the processor sends the stretching acceptance signal and/or the wrinkling acceptance signal to a die manufacturing device for transforming a tool material into the die associated with one of the SI and the altered SI that is less than the SI threshold and with one of the WI and the altered WI that is greater than the WI threshold.” is also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the processor amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claims 2 and 14
Dependent claims 2 and 14 recite “generating, using the processor, a stretching failure signal in response to the processor determining that the SI is greater than the SI threshold”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the stretching failure signal is being used for of how it’s being made known. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) 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".
Also, the claim includes the additional element of a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2 and 14 recite “and indicating, using the display device, that the stamped part has a fracture in response to the display device receiving the stretching failure signal.”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 3 and 15
Dependent claims 3 and 15 recite “generating, using the processor, a wrinkling failure signal in response to the processor determining that the WI is less than a WI threshold”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the wrinkling failure signal is being used for of how it’s being made known. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) 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".
Also, the claim includes the additional element of a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3 and 15 recite “and indicating, using the display device, that the stamped part has a wrinkle in response to the display device receiving the wrinkling failure signal.”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 4 and 16
Dependent claims 4 and 16 recite “generating, using the processor, a stretching failure signal in response to the processor determining that the SI is greater than the SI threshold”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the stretching failure signal is being used for of how it’s being made known. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) 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".
Also, the claim limitation includes the additional element of a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4 and 16 recite “generating, using the processor, a wrinkling failure signal in response to the processor determining that the WI is less than a WI threshold”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the wrinkling failure signal is being used for of how it’s being made known. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) 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".
Also, the claim limitation includes the additional element of a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4 and 16 recite “and indicating, using the display device, that the stamped part has a fracture in response to the display device receiving the stretching failure signal and that the stamped part has a wrinkle in response to the display device receiving the wrinkling failure signal.”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 5
Dependent claim 5 recites “wherein the SI threshold is 1 and wherein the WI threshold is -1.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 6
Dependent claim 6 recites “wherein determining, using the processor, whether the element under analysis is located at a trimmed edge of the stamped part, assumes a linear strain path at each operation”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, the claim limitation includes the additional element of a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6 recites “and calculates, for each element, a ratio between incremental minor strain and major strain at each time step i of operation p according to equation (2.1):
PNG
media_image1.png
362
613
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”. This limitation is calculating a ratio between incremental minor strain and major strain at each time step i of operation p. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 7
Dependent claim 7 recites “wherein determining, using the processor, a SI for a trimmed edge portion in response to the processor producing the computer simulation comprises determining a maximum SI from a plurality of stretching indices.” This limitation determines a maximum SI from a plurality of stretching indices, which involves an equation, see paragraph [0013] of the specification. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, the claim limitation includes the additional element of a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 8
Dependent claim 8 recites “wherein determining, using the processor, a SI for a plane stress portion in response to the processor producing the computer simulation comprises determining the SI from the equation (1.1):
PNG
media_image2.png
64
577
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. This limitation determines a SI for a plane stress portion, which involves an equation, see paragraph [0012] of the specification. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, the claim limitation includes the additional element of a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 9
Dependent claim 9 recites “wherein determining, using the processor, a SI for a trimmed edge portion in response to the processor producing the computer simulation comprises determining the SI from the equation (1.2):
PNG
media_image3.png
63
570
media_image3.png
Greyscale
”. This limitation determines a SI for a trimmed edge portion, which involves an equation, see paragraph [0013] of the specification. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, the claim limitation includes the additional element of a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 10
Dependent claim 10 recites “wherein determining, using the processor, a SI for a plane stress portion in response to the processor producing the computer simulation comprises determining a maximum SI from a plurality of stretching indices (SIs).”. This limitation determines a maximum SI from a plurality of stretching indices, which involves an equation, see paragraph [0013] of the specification. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, the claim limitation includes the additional element of a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 11
Dependent claim 11 recites “wherein determining, using the processor, the WI for the stamped part in response to the processor producing the computer simulation comprises determining the WI from the equation (1.3):
PNG
media_image4.png
46
163
media_image4.png
Greyscale
”. This limitation determines the wrinkling index from equation 1.3 shown in paragraph [0015] of the specification. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, the claim limitation includes the additional element of a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 12
Dependent claim 12 recites “displaying visual indications of the stretching indices (SIs) and wrinkling indices (WIs) associated with the computer simulation.”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 18
Dependent claim 18 recites “wherein the processor is configured to receive the data associated with the part design, with the data comprising at least one of a geometry of the stamped part and at least one material property of the sheet metal forming the stamped part.”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the claim limitation includes the additional element of a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 19
Dependent claim 19 recites “wherein the processor is configured to generate a bead affect stretching failure signal in response to the processor determining that the SI of the bead affect portion is greater than the SI threshold”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the bead affect stretching failure signal is being used for of how it’s being made known. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) 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".
Also, the claim limitation includes the additional element of a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 19 recites “and the display device indicates that the fracture is disposed in the bead affect portion in response to the display device receiving the bead affect stretching failure signal from the processor.”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 20
Dependent claim 20 recites “wherein the processor is configured to generate a trimmed edge stretching failure signal in response to the processor determining that the SI of the trimmed edge portion is greater than the SI threshold”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the trimmed edge stretching failure signal is being used for of how it’s being made known. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) 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".
Also, the claim limitation includes the additional element of a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 20 recites “and the display device indicates that the fracture is disposed in the trimmed edge portion in response to the display device receiving the trimmed edge stretching failure signal from the processor.”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 1-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35
U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheng et al.
(U.S. PGPub 2022/0100923) (from IDS dated 6/22/23) in view of Kim (KR 102235747) (Translation).
With respect to claim 1, Sheng et al. discloses “A method for analyzing a stamped part that has a final shape for a motor vehicle” as [Sheng et al. (Abstract “A system is provided for producing a die that forms a sheet metal blank into a workpiece for a stamped vehicle component.”, Sheng et al. paragraph [0005] “According to several aspects of the present disclosure, a system is provided for producing a die configured to form a sheet metal blank into a workpiece for a stamped part, which has a final shape for a motor vehicle.”)];
“receiving, using the processor, data for the stamped part” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0005] “The system includes a processor configured to receive data for at least one of a die design, a part design, and a stamping process plan associated with the workpiece.”, Sheng et al. paragraph [0037] “The processor 124 is configured to receive data for at least one of a die design, a part design, and a stamping process plan associated with the workpiece.”)];
“producing, using the processor, a computer simulation based on the data” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0005] “The processor is further configured to produce a computer simulation based on the data.”)];
“determining, using the processor, whether an element under analysis is located at a trimmed edge of the stamped part” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0040] “The processor 124 is further configured to determine a stretching index for the trimmed edge portion of the workpiece, in response to the processor producing the computer simulation.”, With determining a stretching index for the trimmed edge portion of the workpiece, the examiner considers an element under analysis that is located at a trimmed edge of the stamped part to be determined, since when the element under analysis is located at a trimmed edge of the stamped part, a stretching index is determined, see paragraph [0005] of the specification)];
“when the element under analysis is located at a trimmed edge of the stamped part, determining, using the processor, a stretching index (SI) for a trimmed edge portion in response to the processor producing the computer simulation” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0040] “The processor 124 is further configured to determine a stretching index for the trimmed edge portion of the workpiece, in response to the processor producing the computer simulation. In this example, the processor is configured to determine the stretching index of the trimmed edge portion by calculating
PNG
media_image5.png
18
122
media_image5.png
Greyscale
in response to the processor determining that τ>0,
PNG
media_image6.png
23
73
media_image6.png
Greyscale
is a major limit strain for the trimmed edge portion; τ is a shear stress; and the processor determines a free edge of the workpiece that is created by a trimming operation.”)];
“or when the element under analysis is not located at a trimmed edge of the stamped part, determining, using the processor, a SI for a plane stress portion in response to the processor producing the computer simulation” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0041] “The processor 124 is further configured to determine a stretching index for the plane stress portion of the workpiece, in response to the processor producing the computer simulation. In this example, the processor is configured to determine the stretching index of the plane stress portion by calculating
PNG
media_image7.png
19
189
media_image7.png
Greyscale
in response to the processor determining that
PNG
media_image8.png
44
75
media_image8.png
Greyscale
”)];
“comparing the SI to a SI threshold and/or comparing the SI to the WI” as [Sheng et al. (Abstract “The processor compares the stretching index to an index threshold.”, Sheng et al. paragraph [0005] “The processor is further configured to compare the stretching index for each of the bead affect portion, the trimmed edge portion, and the plane stress portion to an index threshold.”, Sheng et al. paragraph [0042] “The processor 124 is further configured to compare the stretching index and for each of the bead affect portion, the trimmed edge portion, and the plane stress portion to an index threshold.”)];
“and generating, using the processor, a uniform failure index (UFI) equal to the SI in response to the processor determining that the SI is greater than the SI threshold” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0030] “Examples of the stretching failures include a trimmed edge fracture, a localized necking and following fracture at bead affect zone, and a localized necking and following fracture at plane stress condition. The system and method display the stretching failure risk in a unified SI representation with, for example, one-click operation by a technician. A technician can use the detected stretching failure risk for the practical application of altering the design of the die, part, stamping process plan, or any combination thereof and producing an associated die that transforms sheet metal blanks into stamp parts having the reduced stretching failure risk.”, Sheng et al. paragraph [0005] “The processor is further configured to generate a stretching failure signal, in response to the processor determining that the stretching index for at least one of the bead affect portion, the trimmed edge portion, and the plane stress portion is above the index threshold.”)];
While Sheng et al. teaches determining a stretching index (SI) for a trimmed edge portion, Sheng et al. does not explicitly disclose “determining, using the processor, a wrinkling index (WI) for the stamped part in response to the processor producing the computer simulation; a UFI equal to the SI in response to the processor determining that the SI index is less than the SI threshold and is greater than the absolute value of the WI, and a UFI equal to the WI in response to the processor determining that the SI is less than SI threshold and is less than the absolute value of the WI.”
Kim discloses “determining, using the processor, a wrinkling index (WI) for the stamped part in response to the processor producing the computer simulation” as [Kim (Pg. 5, 1st full paragraph, “[Table 1] below is a table showing the types and causes of defects that may occur in press processing. As shown in [Table 1], defective moldings may occur due to various causes such as insufficient pressure, foreign matter inflow, and poor contact during press processing, and various types of defects such as wrinkles, bends, bursts, necks, burrs, etc. may occur.”, Kim Pg. 6, 1st paragraph, “The defect determination unit 130 may determine whether the molded article 500 is defective based on standard information, error range information, and appearance information. The standard information corresponds to an outlier or a design value of the molded object 400 and the molded object 500, and can be a criterion for determining the defect of the molded object 500, and whether or not it is defective can be determined using the error range information. The appearance information of the molded article 500 may be compared with standard information, and if it is within the error range information, it may be determined as normal, and if it is out of the error range, it may be determined as defective. As described above, the error range information may be set as a plurality of error ranges such as a first error range and a second error range, and may be set to make different determinations according to the error range, and based on the corresponding error range”, The examiner considers appearance information to be the wrinkling index (WI), since the wrinkling index involves the material having wrinkles, which would involve the appearance of the material to be defective.
“a UFI equal to the SI in response to the processor determining that the SI index is less than the SI threshold and is greater than the absolute value of the WI, and a UFI equal to the WI in response to the processor determining that the SI is less than SI threshold and is less than the absolute value of the WI.” as [Kim (Pg. 5, 1st full paragraph, “[Table 1] below is a table showing the types and causes of defects that may occur in press processing. As shown in [Table 1], defective moldings may occur due to various causes such as insufficient pressure, foreign matter inflow, and poor contact during press processing, and various types of defects such as wrinkles, bends, bursts, necks, burrs, etc. may occur.”, Kim Pg. 6, 1st paragraph, “The defect determination unit 130 may determine whether the molded article 500 is defective based on standard information, error range information, and appearance information. The standard information corresponds to an outlier or a design value of the molded object 400 and the molded object 500, and can be a criterion for determining the defect of the molded object 500, and whether or not it is defective can be determined using the error range information. The appearance information of the molded article 500 may be compared with standard information, and if it is within the error range information, it may be determined as normal, and if it is out of the error range, it may be determined as defective. As described above, the error range information may be set as a plurality of error ranges such as a first error range and a second error range, and may be set to make different determinations according to the error range, and based on the corresponding error range”, The examiner notes that there isn’t a clear definition in the claims or within the specification of what the uniform failure index (UFI) is. The examiner considers the uniform failure index to be defective information based on the standard information, error range information and the appearance information, since the defect is based on all the information of the molded product. Also, the examiner considers appearance information to be the wrinkling index (WI), since the wrinkling index involves the material having wrinkles, which would involve the appearance of the material to be defective.)];
Sheng et al. and Kim are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing whether a material has a defect.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Sheng et al. of determining a stretching index (SI) for a trimmed edge portion by incorporating determining, using the processor, a wrinkling index (WI) for the stamped part in response to the processor producing the computer simulation; a UFI equal to the SI in response to the processor determining that the SI index is less than the SI threshold and is greater than the absolute value of the WI, and a UFI equal to the WI in response to the processor determining that the SI is less than SI threshold and is less than the absolute value of the WI as taught by Kim for the purpose of determining the condition of the mold material.
Sheng et al. in view of Kim teaches determining, using the processor, a wrinkling index (WI) for the stamped part in response to the processor producing the computer simulation; a UFI equal to the SI in response to the processor determining that the SI index is less than the SI threshold and is greater than the absolute value of the WI, and a UFI equal to the WI in response to the processor determining that the SI is less than SI threshold and is less than the absolute value of the WI.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Kim teaches that by determining the condition of the mold material, the ability to minimize replacement cost and the time required for replacement can be accomplished. This allows a way for a user to minimize the mold manufacturing time (Kim Pg. 2, 2nd – 3rd paragraph, “It is important to maintain the quality of the molded product produced by separating, etc.”).
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Sheng et al. and Kim discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Sheng et al. further discloses “generating, using the processor, a stretching failure signal in response to the processor determining that the SI is greater than the SI threshold” as [Sheng et al. (Abstract “The processor generates a stretching failure signal when the stretching index is above the index threshold.”, Sheng et al. paragraph [0005] “The processor is further configured to generate a stretching failure signal, in response to the processor determining that the stretching index for at least one of the bead affect portion, the trimmed edge portion, and the plane stress portion is above the index threshold.”, Sheng et al. paragraphs [0007] – [0009] “[0007] In another aspect, the processor is configured to generate a bead affect stretching failure signal, in response to the processor determining that the stretching index of the bead affect portion is above the index threshold. The display device indicates that the fracture is disposed in the bead affect portion, in response to the display device receiving the bead affect stretching failure signal from the processor. [0008] In another aspect, the processor is configured to generate a trimmed edge stretching failure signal, in response to the processor determining that the stretching index of the trimmed edge portion is above the index threshold. The display device indicates that the fracture is disposed in the trimmed edge portion, in response to the display device receiving the trimmed edge stretching failure signal from the processor. [0009] In another aspect, the processor is configured to generate a plane stress stretching failure signal, in response to the processor determining that the stretching index of the plane stress portion is above the index threshold. The display device indicates that the fracture in the plane stress portion, in response to the display device receiving the plane stress stretching failure signal from the processor.”)];
“and indicating, using the display device, that the stamped part has a fracture in response to the display device receiving the stretching failure signal.” as [Sheng et al. (paragraphs [0007] – [0009] “[0007] In another aspect, the processor is configured to generate a bead affect stretching failure signal, in response to the processor determining that the stretching index of the bead affect portion is above the index threshold. The display device indicates that the fracture is disposed in the bead affect portion, in response to the display device receiving the bead affect stretching failure signal from the processor. [0008] In another aspect, the processor is configured to generate a trimmed edge stretching failure signal, in response to the processor determining that the stretching index of the trimmed edge portion is above the index threshold. The display device indicates that the fracture is disposed in the trimmed edge portion, in response to the display device receiving the trimmed edge stretching failure signal from the processor. [0009] In another aspect, the processor is configured to generate a plane stress stretching failure signal, in response to the processor determining that the stretching index of the plane stress portion is above the index threshold. The display device indicates that the fracture in the plane stress portion, in response to the display device receiving the plane stress stretching failure signal from the processor.”)];
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Sheng et al. and Kim discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Kim further discloses “generating, using the processor, a wrinkling failure signal in response to the processor determining that the WI is less than a WI threshold” as [Kim (Pg. 5, 1st full paragraph, “[Table 1] below is a table showing the types and causes of defects that may occur in press processing. As shown in [Table 1], defective moldings may occur due to various causes such as insufficient pressure, foreign matter inflow, and poor contact during press processing, and various types of defects such as wrinkles, bends, bursts, necks, burrs, etc. may occur.”, Kim Pg. 6, 1st paragraph, “The defect determination unit 130 may determine whether the molded article 500 is defective based on standard information, error range information, and appearance information. The standard information corresponds to an outlier or a design value of the molded object 400 and the molded object 500, and can be a criterion for determining the defect of the molded object 500, and whether or not it is defective can be determined using the error range information. The appearance information of the molded article 500 may be compared with standard information, and if it is within the error range information, it may be determined as normal, and if it is out of the error range, it may be determined as defective. As described above, the error range information may be set as a plurality of error ranges such as a first error range and a second error range, and may be set to make different determinations according to the error range, and based on the corresponding error range”, The examiner considers appearance information to be the wrinkling index (WI), since the wrinkling index involves the material having wrinkles, which would involve the appearance of the material to be defective.)];
“and indicating, using the display device, that the stamped part has a wrinkle in response to the display device receiving the wrinkling failure signal.” as [Kim (Pg. 5, last paragraph, “The defective molded article determined by the defect determination unit 130 may be discharged separately from the normal molded article 500 through the defective discharge port 140,and defective information, which is information about the defective molded article, is displayed through the display unit 150 to allow the user to you can check the defect information.”, Kim Pg. 6, 5th paragraph, “The display unit 150 of the press-formed article management apparatus 100 may display standard information, driving information, appearance information, and defect information.”)];
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Sheng et al. and Kim discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Sheng et al. further discloses “generating, using the processor, a stretching failure signal in response to the processor determining that the SI is greater than the SI threshold” as [Sheng et al. (Abstract “The processor generates a stretching failure signal when the stretching index is above the index threshold.”, Sheng et al. paragraph [0005] “The processor is further configured to generate a stretching failure signal, in response to the processor determining that the stretching index for at least one of the bead affect portion, the trimmed edge portion, and the plane stress portion is above the index threshold.”, Sheng et al. paragraphs [0007] – [0009] “[0007] In another aspect, the processor is configured to generate a bead affect stretching failure signal, in response to the processor determining that the stretching index of the bead affect portion is above the index threshold. The display device indicates that the fracture is disposed in the bead affect portion, in response to the display device receiving the bead affect stretching failure signal from the processor. [0008] In another aspect, the processor is configured to generate a trimmed edge stretching failure signal, in response to the processor determining that the stretching index of the trimmed edge portion is above the index threshold. The display device indicates that the fracture is disposed in the trimmed edge portion, in response to the display device receiving the trimmed edge stretching failure signal from the processor. [0009] In another aspect, the processor is configured to generate a plane stress stretching failure signal, in response to the processor determining that the stretching index of the plane stress portion is above the index threshold. The display device indicates that the fracture in the plane stress portion, in response to the display device receiving the plane stress stretching failure signal from the processor.”)];
“and indicating, using the display device, that the stamped part has a fracture in response to the display device receiving the stretching failure signal” as [Sheng et al. (paragraphs [0007] – [0009] “[0007] In another aspect, the processor is configured to generate a bead affect stretching failure signal, in response to the processor determining that the stretching index of the bead affect portion is above the index threshold. The display device indicates that the fracture is disposed in the bead affect portion, in response to the display device receiving the bead affect stretching failure signal from the processor. [0008] In another aspect, the processor is configured to generate a trimmed edge stretching failure signal, in response to the processor determining that the stretching index of the trimmed edge portion is above the index threshold. The display device indicates that the fracture is disposed in the trimmed edge portion, in response to the display device receiving the trimmed edge stretching failure signal from the processor. [0009] In another aspect, the processor is configured to generate a plane stress stretching failure signal, in response to the processor determining that the stretching index of the plane stress portion is above the index threshold. The display device indicates that the fracture in the plane stress portion, in response to the display device receiving the plane stress stretching failure signal from the processor.”)];
Kim discloses “generating, using the processor, a wrinkling failure signal in response to the processor determining that the WI is less than a WI threshold” as [Kim (Pg. 5, 1st full paragraph, “[Table 1] below is a table showing the types and causes of defects that may occur in press processing. As shown in [Table 1], defective moldings may occur due to various causes such as insufficient pressure, foreign matter inflow, and poor contact during press processing, and various types of defects such as wrinkles, bends, bursts, necks, burrs, etc. may occur.”, Kim Pg. 6, 1st paragraph, “The defect determination unit 130 may determine whether the molded article 500 is defective based on standard information, error range information, and appearance information. The standard information corresponds to an outlier or a design value of the molded object 400 and the molded object 500, and can be a criterion for determining the defect of the molded object 500, and whether or not it is defective can be determined using the error range information. The appearance information of the molded article 500 may be compared with standard information, and if it is within the error range information, it may be determined as normal, and if it is out of the error range, it may be determined as defective. As described above, the error range information may be set as a plurality of error ranges such as a first error range and a second error range, and may be set to make different determinations according to the error range, and based on the corresponding error range”, The examiner considers appearance information to be the wrinkling index (WI), since the wrinkling index involves the material having wrinkles, which would involve the appearance of the material to be defective.)];
“and indicating, using the display device, that the stamped part has a wrinkle in response to the display device receiving the wrinkling failure signal.” as [Kim (Pg. 5, last paragraph, “The defective molded article determined by the defect determination unit 130 may be discharged separately from the normal molded article 500 through the defective discharge port 140,and defective information, which is information about the defective molded article, is displayed through the display unit 150 to allow the user to you can check the defect information.”, Kim Pg. 6, 5th paragraph, “The display unit 150 of the press-formed article management apparatus 100 may display standard information, driving information, appearance information, and defect information.”)];
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Sheng et al. and Kim discloses the method of claim 4 above, and Sheng et al. further discloses “wherein the SI threshold is 1” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0042] “The processor 124 is further configured to compare the stretching index and for each of the bead affect portion, the trimmed edge portion, and the plane stress portion to an index threshold. Continuing with the previous example, the index threshold can be 1, and the processor can be configured to determine whether the stretching index for an associated one of the bead affect portion, the trimmed edge portion, and the plane stress portion is below 1.”)];
Kim discloses “and wherein the WI threshold is -1.” as [Kim (Pg. 6, 1st paragraph, “The defect determination unit 130 may determine whether the molded article 500 is defective based on standard information, error range information, and appearance information. The standard information corresponds to an outlier or a design value of the molded object 400 and the molded object 500, and can be a criterion for determining the defect of the molded object 500, and whether or not it is defective can be determined using the error range information. The appearance information of the molded article 500 may be compared with standard information, and if it is within the error range information, it may be determined as normal, and if it is out of the error range, it may be determined as defective. As described above, the error range information may be set as a plurality of error ranges such as a first error range and a second error range, and may be set to make different determinations according to the error range, and based on the corresponding error range”, The examiner consider the appearance information being out of the error range as being the WI threshold -1, since for the wrinkling index to be within the wrinkling index threshold, the WI would be greater than -1, see paragraph [0021] of the specification)];
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Sheng et al. and Kim discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Sheng et al. further discloses “wherein determining, using the processor, whether the element under analysis is located at a trimmed edge of the stamped part, assumes a linear strain path at each operation, and calculates, for each element, a ratio between incremental minor strain and major strain at each time step i of operation p according to equation (2.1):
PNG
media_image1.png
362
613
media_image1.png
Greyscale
” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0010] “In another aspect, the processor is configured to determine the stretching index of the bead affect portion by calculating
PNG
media_image9.png
21
254
media_image9.png
Greyscale
where: SI is the stretching index;
PNG
media_image10.png
21
21
media_image10.png
Greyscale
is a major strain of the workpiece at integration points 0, 1, and 2 corresponding to an associated one of middle, upper, and lower planar layers forming a plate thickness of the workpiece;
PNG
media_image11.png
21
23
media_image11.png
Greyscale
is a minor strain of the workpiece at the integration points 0, 1, and 2”, Sheng et al. paragraph [0039] “In this example, the processor is configured to determine the stretching index and of the bead affect portion by calculating
PNG
media_image9.png
21
254
media_image9.png
Greyscale
in response to the processor determining that
PNG
media_image12.png
49
67
media_image12.png
Greyscale
where: SI is the stretching index;
PNG
media_image10.png
21
21
media_image10.png
Greyscale
is a major strain of the workpiece at an integration points 0, 1, and 2 corresponding to an associated one of middle, upper, and lower planar layers forming a plate thickness of the workpiece;
PNG
media_image11.png
21
23
media_image11.png
Greyscale
is a minor strain of the workpiece at the integration points 0, 1, and 2”)];
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Sheng et al. and Kim discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Sheng et al. further discloses “wherein determining, using the processor, a SI for a trimmed edge portion in response to the processor producing the computer simulation comprises determining a maximum SI from a plurality of stretching indices.” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0040] “The processor 124 is further configured to determine a stretching index for the trimmed edge portion of the workpiece, in response to the processor producing the computer simulation. In this example, the processor is configured to determine the stretching index of the trimmed edge portion by calculating
PNG
media_image5.png
18
122
media_image5.png
Greyscale
in response to the processor determining that τ>0,
PNG
media_image6.png
23
73
media_image6.png
Greyscale
is a major limit strain for the trimmed edge portion; τ is a shear stress; and the processor determines a free edge of the workpiece that is created by a trimming operation.”)];
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Sheng et al. and Kim discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Sheng et al. further discloses “wherein determining, using the processor, a SI for a plane stress portion in response to the processor producing the computer simulation comprises determining the SI from the equation (1.1):
PNG
media_image2.png
64
577
media_image2.png
Greyscale
” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0041] “The processor 124 is further configured to determine a stretching index for the plane stress portion of the workpiece, in response to the processor producing the computer simulation. In this example, the processor is configured to determine the stretching index of the plane stress portion by calculating
PNG
media_image7.png
19
189
media_image7.png
Greyscale
in response to the processor determining that
PNG
media_image8.png
44
75
media_image8.png
Greyscale
”)];
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Sheng et al. and Kim discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Sheng et al. further discloses “wherein determining, using the processor, a SI for a trimmed edge portion in response to the processor producing the computer simulation comprises determining the SI from the equation (1.2):
PNG
media_image3.png
63
570
media_image3.png
Greyscale
” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0040] “The processor 124 is further configured to determine a stretching index for the trimmed edge portion of the workpiece, in response to the processor producing the computer simulation. In this example, the processor is configured to determine the stretching index of the trimmed edge portion by calculating
PNG
media_image5.png
18
122
media_image5.png
Greyscale
in response to the processor determining that τ>0,
PNG
media_image6.png
23
73
media_image6.png
Greyscale
is a major limit strain for the trimmed edge portion; τ is a shear stress; and the processor determines a free edge of the workpiece that is created by a trimming operation.”)];
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Sheng et al. and Kim discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Sheng et al. further discloses “wherein determining, using the processor, a SI for a plane stress portion in response to the processor producing the computer simulation comprises determining a maximum SI from a plurality of stretching indices (SIs).” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0041] “The processor 124 is further configured to determine a stretching index for the plane stress portion of the workpiece, in response to the processor producing the computer simulation. In this example, the processor is configured to determine the stretching index of the plane stress portion by calculating
PNG
media_image7.png
19
189
media_image7.png
Greyscale
in response to the processor determining that
PNG
media_image8.png
44
75
media_image8.png
Greyscale
”, Sheng et al. paragraph [0055] “At block 216, the processor 124 compares the stretching index for the plane stress portion to the index threshold. Continuing with the previous example, the index threshold is 1, and the processor 124 determines the stretching index of the plane stress portion by calculating
PNG
media_image7.png
19
189
media_image7.png
Greyscale
in response to the processor 124 determining that
PNG
media_image8.png
44
75
media_image8.png
Greyscale
)];
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Sheng et al. and Kim discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Kim further discloses “wherein determining, using the processor, the WI for the stamped part in response to the processor producing the computer simulation comprises determining the WI from the equation (1.3):
PNG
media_image4.png
46
163
media_image4.png
Greyscale
” as [Kim (Pg. 5, 1st full paragraph, “[Table 1] below is a table showing the types and causes of defects that may occur in press processing. As shown in [Table 1], defective moldings may occur due to various causes such as insufficient pressure, foreign matter inflow, and poor contact during press processing, and various types of defects such as wrinkles, bends, bursts, necks, burrs, etc. may occur.”, Kim Pg. 6, 1st paragraph, “The defect determination unit 130 may determine whether the molded article 500 is defective based on standard information, error range information, and appearance information. The standard information corresponds to an outlier or a design value of the molded object 400 and the molded object 500, and can be a criterion for determining the defect of the molded object 500, and whether or not it is defective can be determined using the error range information. The appearance information of the molded article 500 may be compared with standard information, and if it is within the error range information, it may be determined as normal, and if it is out of the error range, it may be determined as defective. As described above, the error range information may be set as a plurality of error ranges such as a first error range and a second error range, and may be set to make different determinations according to the error range, and based on the corresponding error range”)];
With respect to claim 12, the combination of Sheng et al. and Kim discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Sheng et al. further discloses “displaying visual indications of the stretching indices (SIs) and wrinkling indices (WIs) associated with the computer simulation.” as [Sheng et al. (paragraphs [0007] – [0009] “[0007] In another aspect, the processor is configured to generate a bead affect stretching failure signal, in response to the processor determining that the stretching index of the bead affect portion is above the index threshold. The display device indicates that the fracture is disposed in the bead affect portion, in response to the display device receiving the bead affect stretching failure signal from the processor. [0008] In another aspect, the processor is configured to generate a trimmed edge stretching failure signal, in response to the processor determining that the stretching index of the trimmed edge portion is above the index threshold. The display device indicates that the fracture is disposed in the trimmed edge portion, in response to the display device receiving the trimmed edge stretching failure signal from the processor. [0009] In another aspect, the processor is configured to generate a plane stress stretching failure signal, in response to the processor determining that the stretching index of the plane stress portion is above the index threshold. The display device indicates that the fracture in the plane stress portion, in response to the display device receiving the plane stress stretching failure signal from the processor.”)];
With respect to claim 13, Sheng et al. discloses “A system for analyzing a stamped part that has a final shape for a motor vehicle” as [Sheng et al. (Abstract “A system is provided for producing a die that forms a sheet metal blank into a workpiece for a stamped vehicle component.”, Sheng et al. paragraph [0005] “According to several aspects of the present disclosure, a system is provided for producing a die configured to form a sheet metal blank into a workpiece for a stamped part, which has a final shape for a motor vehicle.”)];
“a processor” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0005] “The system includes a processor configured to receive data for at least one of a die design, a part design, and a stamping process plan associated with the workpiece.”)];
“receive, data for the stamped part” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0005] “The system includes a processor configured to receive data for at least one of a die design, a part design, and a stamping process plan associated with the workpiece.”, Sheng et al. paragraph [0037] “The processor 124 is configured to receive data for at least one of a die design, a part design, and a stamping process plan associated with the workpiece.”)];
“produce a computer simulation based on the data” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0005] “The processor is further configured to produce a computer simulation based on the data.”)];
“determine whether an element under analysis is located at a trimmed edge of the stamped part” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0040] “The processor 124 is further configured to determine a stretching index for the trimmed edge portion of the workpiece, in response to the processor producing the computer simulation.”, With determining a stretching index for the trimmed edge portion of the workpiece, the examiner considers an element under analysis that is located at a trimmed edge of the stamped part to be determined, since when the element under analysis is located at a trimmed edge of the stamped part, a stretching index is determined, see paragraph [0005] of the specification)];
“determine a stretching index (SI) for a trimmed edge portion when the element under analysis is located at a trimmed edge of the stamped part” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0040] “The processor 124 is further configured to determine a stretching index for the trimmed edge portion of the workpiece, in response to the processor producing the computer simulation. In this example, the processor is configured to determine the stretching index of the trimmed edge portion by calculating
PNG
media_image5.png
18
122
media_image5.png
Greyscale
in response to the processor determining that τ>0,
PNG
media_image6.png
23
73
media_image6.png
Greyscale
is a major limit strain for the trimmed edge portion; τ is a shear stress; and the processor determines a free edge of the workpiece that is created by a trimming operation.”)];
“determine a SI for a plane stress portion when the element under analysis is not located at a trimmed edge of the stamped part” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0041] “The processor 124 is further configured to determine a stretching index for the plane stress portion of the workpiece, in response to the processor producing the computer simulation. In this example, the processor is configured to determine the stretching index of the plane stress portion by calculating
PNG
media_image7.png
19
189
media_image7.png
Greyscale
in response to the processor determining that
PNG
media_image8.png
44
75
media_image8.png
Greyscale
”)];
“compare the SI to a SI threshold and/or compare the SI to the WI” as [Sheng et al. (Abstract “The processor compares the stretching index to an index threshold.”, Sheng et al. paragraph [0005] “The processor is further configured to compare the stretching index for each of the bead affect portion, the trimmed edge portion, and the plane stress portion to an index threshold.”, Sheng et al. paragraph [0042] “The processor 124 is further configured to compare the stretching index and for each of the bead affect portion, the trimmed edge portion, and the plane stress portion to an index threshold.”)];
“and generate a UFI equal to the SI in response to determining that the SI is greater than the index threshold” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0030] “Examples of the stretching failures include a trimmed edge fracture, a localized necking and following fracture at bead affect zone, and a localized necking and following fracture at plane stress condition. The system and method display the stretching failure risk in a unified SI representation with, for example, one-click operation by a technician. A technician can use the detected stretching failure risk for the practical application of altering the design of the die, part, stamping process plan, or any combination thereof and producing an associated die that transforms sheet metal blanks into stamp parts having the reduced stretching failure risk.”, Sheng et al. paragraph [0005] “The processor is further configured to generate a stretching failure signal, in response to the processor determining that the stretching index for at least one of the bead affect portion, the trimmed edge portion, and the plane stress portion is above the index threshold.”)];
“and a display device electrically coupled to the processor and configured to visually indicate the SIs associated with the computer simulation” as [Sheng et al. (paragraphs [0007] – [0009] “[0007] In another aspect, the processor is configured to generate a bead affect stretching failure signal, in response to the processor determining that the stretching index of the bead affect portion is above the index threshold. The display device indicates that the fracture is disposed in the bead affect portion, in response to the display device receiving the bead affect stretching failure signal from the processor. [0008] In another aspect, the processor is configured to generate a trimmed edge stretching failure signal, in response to the processor determining that the stretching index of the trimmed edge portion is above the index threshold. The display device indicates that the fracture is disposed in the trimmed edge portion, in response to the display device receiving the trimmed edge stretching failure signal from the processor. [0009] In another aspect, the processor is configured to generate a plane stress stretching failure signal, in response to the processor determining that the stretching index of the plane stress portion is above the index threshold. The display device indicates that the fracture in the plane stress portion, in response to the display device receiving the plane stress stretching failure signal from the processor.”)];
While Sheng et al. teaches determining a stretching index (SI) for a trimmed edge portion, Sheng et al. does not explicitly disclose “determine a wrinkling index for the stamped part in response to the processor producing the computer simulation; generate a UFI equal to the SI in response to determining that the SI is not greater than the SI threshold and is greater than the absolute value of the WI, or generate a UFI equal to the WI in response to determining that the SI is not greater than the SI threshold and is not greater than the absolute value of the WI; and a display device electrically coupled to the processor and configured to visually indicate the WIs associated with the computer simulation.”
Kim discloses “determine a wrinkling index for the stamped part in response to the processor producing the computer simulation” as [Kim (Pg. 5, 1st full paragraph, “[Table 1] below is a table showing the types and causes of defects that may occur in press processing. As shown in [Table 1], defective moldings may occur due to various causes such as insufficient pressure, foreign matter inflow, and poor contact during press processing, and various types of defects such as wrinkles, bends, bursts, necks, burrs, etc. may occur.”, Kim Pg. 6, 1st paragraph, “The defect determination unit 130 may determine whether the molded article 500 is defective based on standard information, error range information, and appearance information. The standard information corresponds to an outlier or a design value of the molded object 400 and the molded object 500, and can be a criterion for determining the defect of the molded object 500, and whether or not it is defective can be determined using the error range information. The appearance information of the molded article 500 may be compared with standard information, and if it is within the error range information, it may be determined as normal, and if it is out of the error range, it may be determined as defective. As described above, the error range information may be set as a plurality of error ranges such as a first error range and a second error range, and may be set to make different determinations according to the error range, and based on the corresponding error range”, The examiner considers appearance information to be the wrinkling index (WI), since the wrinkling index involves the material having wrinkles, which would involve the appearance of the material to be defective.
“generate a UFI equal to the SI in response to determining that the SI is not greater than the SI threshold and is greater than the absolute value of the WI, or generate a UFI equal to the WI in response to determining that the SI is not greater than the SI threshold and is not greater than the absolute value of the WI” as [Kim (Pg. 5, 1st full paragraph, “[Table 1] below is a table showing the types and causes of defects that may occur in press processing. As shown in [Table 1], defective moldings may occur due to various causes such as insufficient pressure, foreign matter inflow, and poor contact during press processing, and various types of defects such as wrinkles, bends, bursts, necks, burrs, etc. may occur.”, Kim Pg. 6, 1st paragraph, “The defect determination unit 130 may determine whether the molded article 500 is defective based on standard information, error range information, and appearance information. The standard information corresponds to an outlier or a design value of the molded object 400 and the molded object 500, and can be a criterion for determining the defect of the molded object 500, and whether or not it is defective can be determined using the error range information. The appearance information of the molded article 500 may be compared with standard information, and if it is within the error range information, it may be determined as normal, and if it is out of the error range, it may be determined as defective. As described above, the error range information may be set as a plurality of error ranges such as a first error range and a second error range, and may be set to make different determinations according to the error range, and based on the corresponding error range”, The examiner notes that there isn’t a clear definition in the claims or within the specification of what the uniform failure index (UFI) is. The examiner considers the uniform failure index to be defective information based on the standard information, error range information and the appearance information, since the defect is based on all the information of the molded product. Also, the examiner considers appearance information to be the wrinkling index (WI), since the wrinkling index involves the material having wrinkles, which would involve the appearance of the material to be defective.)];
“and a display device electrically coupled to the processor and configured to visually indicate the WIs associated with the computer simulation.” as [Kim (Pg. 5, last paragraph, “The defective molded article determined by the defect determination unit 130 may be discharged separately from the normal molded article 500 through the defective discharge port 140,and defective information, which is information about the defective molded article, is displayed through the display unit 150 to allow the user to you can check the defect information.”, Kim Pg. 6, 5th paragraph, “The display unit 150 of the press-formed article management apparatus 100 may display standard information, driving information, appearance information, and defect information.”)];
Sheng et al. and Kim are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing whether a material has a defect.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Sheng et al. of determining a stretching index (SI) for a trimmed edge portion by incorporating determine a wrinkling index for the stamped part in response to the processor producing the computer simulation; generate a UFI equal to the SI in response to determining that the SI is not greater than the SI threshold and is greater than the absolute value of the WI, or generate a UFI equal to the WI in response to determining that the SI is not greater than the SI threshold and is not greater than the absolute value of the WI; and a display device electrically coupled to the processor and configured to visually indicate the WIs associated with the computer simulation as taught by Kim for the purpose of determining the condition of the mold material.
Sheng et al. in view of Kim teaches determine a wrinkling index for the stamped part in response to the processor producing the computer simulation; generate a UFI equal to the SI in response to determining that the SI is not greater than the SI threshold and is greater than the absolute value of the WI, or generate a UFI equal to the WI in response to determining that the SI is not greater than the SI threshold and is not greater than the absolute value of the WI; and a display device electrically coupled to the processor and configured to visually indicate the WIs associated with the computer simulation.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Kim teaches that by determining the condition of the mold material, the ability to minimize replacement cost and the time required for replacement can be accomplished. This allows a way for a user to minimize the mold manufacturing time (Kim Pg. 2, 2nd – 3rd paragraph, “It is important to maintain the quality of the molded product produced by separating, etc.”).
With respect to claim 14, the claim recites the same substantive limitation of claim 2 above and is rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 15, the claim recites the same substantive limitation of claim 3 above and is rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 16, the claim recites the same substantive limitation of claim 4 above and is rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 17, Sheng et al. discloses “A system for producing a die configured to form a sheet metal blank into a workpiece for a stamped part that has a final shape for a motor vehicle, with the workpiece having a bead affect portion, a trimmed edge portion, and a plane stress portion” as [Sheng et al. (Abstract “A system is provided for producing a die that forms a sheet metal blank into a workpiece for a stamped vehicle component.”, Sheng et al. paragraph [0005] “According to several aspects of the present disclosure, a system is provided for producing a die configured to form a sheet metal blank into a workpiece for a stamped part, which has a final shape for a motor vehicle. The workpiece has a bead affect portion, a trimmed edge portion, and a plane stress portion.”)];
“a processor” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0005] “The system includes a processor configured to receive data for at least one of a die design, a part design, and a stamping process plan associated with the workpiece.”)];
“receive data for at least one of a die design, a part design, and a stamping process plan associated with the workpiece” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0005] “The system includes a processor configured to receive data for at least one of a die design, a part design, and a stamping process plan associated with the workpiece.”, Sheng et al. paragraph [0037] “The processor 124 is configured to receive data for at least one of a die design, a part design, and a stamping process plan associated with the workpiece.”)];
“produce a computer simulation based on the data” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0005] “The processor is further configured to produce a computer simulation based on the data.”)];
“determine a stretching index (SI) for an associated one of the bead affect portion, the trimmed edge portion, and the plane stress portion of the workpiece in response to the processor producing the computer simulation” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0005] “The processor is further configured to determine a stretching index for an associated one of the bead affect portion, the trimmed edge portion, and the plane stress portion of the workpiece, in response to the processor producing the computer simulation.”)];
“compare the SI for each of the bead affect portion, the trimmed edge portion, and the plane stress portion to an SI threshold” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0005] “The processor is further configured to compare the stretching index for each of the bead affect portion, the trimmed edge portion, and the plane stress portion to an index threshold.”)];
“and generate a stretching failure signal in response to the processor determining that the SI for at least one of the bead affect portion, the trimmed edge portion, and the plane stress portion is greater than the SI threshold” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0005] “The processor is further configured to generate a stretching failure signal, in response to the processor determining that the stretching index for at least one of the bead affect portion, the trimmed edge portion, and the plane stress portion is above the index threshold.”)];
“receive altered data for at least one of an altered die design, an altered part design, and an altered stamping process plan associated with the workpiece” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0005] “The processor is further configured to receive altered data for at least one of an altered die design, an altered part design, and an altered stamping process plan associated with the workpiece and produce an altered computer simulation based on the altered data.”)];
“produce an altered computer simulation based on the altered data” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0005] “The processor is further configured to receive altered data for at least one of an altered die design, an altered part design, and an altered stamping process plan associated with the workpiece and produce an altered computer simulation based on the altered data.”)];
“determine an altered SI for an associated one of the bead affect portion, the trimmed edge portion, and the plane stress portion of the workpiece in response to the processor producing the altered computer simulation” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0005] “The processor is further configured to determine an altered stretching index for an associated one of the bead affect portion, the trimmed edge portion, and the plane stress portion of the workpiece, in response to the processor producing the altered computer simulation.”)];
“and generate a stretching acceptance signal in response to the processor determining that one of the SI and the altered SI for each of the bead affect portion, the trimmed edge portion, and the plane stress portion is not greater than the SI threshold” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0005] “The processor is further configured to generate a stretching acceptance signal, in response to the processor determining that one of the stretching index and the altered stretching index for each of the bead affect portion, the trimmed edge portion, and the plane stress portion is below the index threshold.”)];
“and a display device electrically coupled to the processor and configured to: indicate that the workpiece has a fracture and/or a wrinkle and to prompt a user to input the altered data into the processor, in response to the display device receiving the stretching failure signal and/or the wrinkling failure signal” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0005] “The system further includes a display device electrically coupled to the processor. The display device is configured to indicate that the workpiece has a fracture and prompt a user to input altered data into the processor, in response to the display device receiving the stretching failure signal.”)];
“and a display device electrically coupled to the processor and configured to: indicate that the workpiece does not have the fracture and/or the wrinkle in response to the display device receiving the stretching acceptance signal and/or the wrinkling acceptance signal, such that the processor sends the stretching acceptance signal and/or the wrinkling acceptance signal to a die manufacturing device for transforming a tool material into the die associated with one of the SI and the altered SI that is less than the SI threshold” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0005] “The display device is further configured to indicate that the workpiece does not have the fracture, in response to the display device receiving the stretching acceptance signal, such that the processor sends the stretching acceptance signal to a die manufacturing device for transforming a tool material into the die associated with one of the stretching index or the altered stretching index that is below the index threshold.”)];
While Sheng et al. teaches determining a stretching index (SI) for a trimmed edge portion, Sheng et al. does not explicitly disclose “determine a wrinkling index for the workpiece in response to the processor producing the computer simulation; compare the WI to a WI threshold; and generate a wrinkling failure signal in response to the processor determining that the WI is less than the WI threshold; determine an WI for the workpiece in response to the processor producing the altered computer simulation; and generate a wrinkling acceptance signal in response to the processor determining that one of the WI and the altered WI is less than the WI threshold; and a display device electrically coupled to the processor and configured to: indicate that the workpiece does not have the fracture and/or the wrinkle in response to the display device receiving the wrinkling acceptance signal, such that the processor sends the wrinkling acceptance signal to a die manufacturing device for transforming a tool material into the die associated with one of the WI and the altered WI that is greater than the WI threshold.”
Kim discloses “determine a wrinkling index for the workpiece in response to the processor producing the computer simulation” as [Kim (Pg. 5, 1st full paragraph, “[Table 1] below is a table showing the types and causes of defects that may occur in press processing. As shown in [Table 1], defective moldings may occur due to various causes such as insufficient pressure, foreign matter inflow, and poor contact during press processing, and various types of defects such as wrinkles, bends, bursts, necks, burrs, etc. may occur.”, Kim Pg. 6, 1st paragraph, “The defect determination unit 130 may determine whether the molded article 500 is defective based on standard information, error range information, and appearance information. The standard information corresponds to an outlier or a design value of the molded object 400 and the molded object 500, and can be a criterion for determining the defect of the molded object 500, and whether or not it is defective can be determined using the error range information. The appearance information of the molded article 500 may be compared with standard information, and if it is within the error range information, it may be determined as normal, and if it is out of the error range, it may be determined as defective. As described above, the error range information may be set as a plurality of error ranges such as a first error range and a second error range, and may be set to make different determinations according to the error range, and based on the corresponding error range”, The examiner considers appearance information to be the wrinkling index (WI), since the wrinkling index involves the material having wrinkles, which would involve the appearance of the material to be defective.
“compare the WI to a WI threshold” as [Kim (Pg. 5, 1st full paragraph, “[Table 1] below is a table showing the types and causes of defects that may occur in press processing. As shown in [Table 1], defective moldings may occur due to various causes such as insufficient pressure, foreign matter inflow, and poor contact during press processing, and various types of defects such as wrinkles, bends, bursts, necks, burrs, etc. may occur.”, Kim Pg. 6, 1st paragraph, “The defect determination unit 130 may determine whether the molded article 500 is defective based on standard information, error range information, and appearance information. The standard information corresponds to an outlier or a design value of the molded object 400 and the molded object 500, and can be a criterion for determining the defect of the molded object 500, and whether or not it is defective can be determined using the error range information. The appearance information of the molded article 500 may be compared with standard information, and if it is within the error range information, it may be determined as normal, and if it is out of the error range, it may be determined as defective. As described above, the error range information may be set as a plurality of error ranges such as a first error range and a second error range, and may be set to make different determinations according to the error range, and based on the corresponding error range”)];
“and generate a wrinkling failure signal in response to the processor determining that the WI is less than the WI threshold” as [Kim (Pg. 5, 1st full paragraph, “[Table 1] below is a table showing the types and causes of defects that may occur in press processing. As shown in [Table 1], defective moldings may occur due to various causes such as insufficient pressure, foreign matter inflow, and poor contact during press processing, and various types of defects such as wrinkles, bends, bursts, necks, burrs, etc. may occur.”, Kim Pg. 6, 1st paragraph, “The defect determination unit 130 may determine whether the molded article 500 is defective based on standard information, error range information, and appearance information. The standard information corresponds to an outlier or a design value of the molded object 400 and the molded object 500, and can be a criterion for determining the defect of the molded object 500, and whether or not it is defective can be determined using the error range information. The appearance information of the molded article 500 may be compared with standard information, and if it is within the error range information, it may be determined as normal, and if it is out of the error range, it may be determined as defective. As described above, the error range information may be set as a plurality of error ranges such as a first error range and a second error range, and may be set to make different determinations according to the error range, and based on the corresponding error range”)];
“determine an WI for the workpiece in response to the processor producing the altered computer simulation” as [Kim (Pg. 6, 1st paragraph, “The defect determination unit 130 may determine whether the molded article 500 is defective based on standard information, error range information, and appearance information. The standard information corresponds to an outlier or a design value of the molded object 400 and the molded object 500, and can be a criterion for determining the defect of the molded object 500, and whether or not it is defective can be determined using the error range information. The appearance information of the molded article 500 may be compared with standard information, and if it is within the error range information, it may be determined as normal, and if it is out of the error range, it may be determined as defective. As described above, the error range information may be set as a plurality of error ranges such as a first error range and a second error range, and may be set to make different determinations according to the error range, and based on the corresponding error range, the display unit 150 ) Can be changed, and follow-up measures, such as stopping the operation of the processing line, can be performed when requesting user confirmation, or when it is determined more than a preset number of times within a specific error range.”)];
“and generate a wrinkling acceptance signal in response to the processor determining that one of the WI and the altered WI is less than the WI threshold” as [Kim (Pg. 5, 1st full paragraph, “[Table 1] below is a table showing the types and causes of defects that may occur in press processing. As shown in [Table 1], defective moldings may occur due to various causes such as insufficient pressure, foreign matter inflow, and poor contact during press processing, and various types of defects such as wrinkles, bends, bursts, necks, burrs, etc. may occur.”, Kim Pg. 6, 1st paragraph, “The defect determination unit 130 may determine whether the molded article 500 is defective based on standard information, error range information, and appearance information. The standard information corresponds to an outlier or a design value of the molded object 400 and the molded object 500, and can be a criterion for determining the defect of the molded object 500, and whether or not it is defective can be determined using the error range information. The appearance information of the molded article 500 may be compared with standard information, and if it is within the error range information, it may be determined as normal, and if it is out of the error range, it may be determined as defective. As described above, the error range information may be set as a plurality of error ranges such as a first error range and a second error range, and may be set to make different determinations according to the error range, and based on the corresponding error range”, The examiner considers appearance information to be the wrinkling index (WI), since the wrinkling index involves the material having wrinkles, which would involve the appearance of the material to be defective.)];
“and a display device electrically coupled to the processor and configured to: indicate that the workpiece does not have the fracture and/or the wrinkle in response to the display device receiving the wrinkling acceptance signal, such that the processor sends the wrinkling acceptance signal to a die manufacturing device for transforming a tool material into the die associated with one of the WI and the altered WI that is greater than the WI threshold.” as [Kim (Pg. 5, last paragraph, “The defective molded article determined by the defect determination unit 130 may be discharged separately from the normal molded article 500 through the defective discharge port 140,and defective information, which is information about the defective molded article, is displayed through the display unit 150 to allow the user to you can check the defect information.”, Kim Pg. 6, 5th paragraph, “The display unit 150 of the press-formed article management apparatus 100 may display standard information, driving information, appearance information, and defect information.”)];
Sheng et al. and Kim are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing whether a material has a defect.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Sheng et al. of determining a stretching index (SI) for a trimmed edge portion by incorporating determine a wrinkling index for the workpiece in response to the processor producing the computer simulation; compare the WI to a WI threshold; and generate a wrinkling failure signal in response to the processor determining that the WI is less than the WI threshold; determine an WI for the workpiece in response to the processor producing the altered computer simulation; and generate a wrinkling acceptance signal in response to the processor determining that one of the WI and the altered WI is less than the WI threshold; and a display device electrically coupled to the processor and configured to: indicate that the workpiece does not have the fracture and/or the wrinkle in response to the display device receiving the wrinkling acceptance signal, such that the processor sends the wrinkling acceptance signal to a die manufacturing device for transforming a tool material into the die associated with one of the WI and the altered WI that is greater than the WI threshold as taught by Kim for the purpose of determining the condition of the mold material.
Sheng et al. in view of Kim teaches determine a wrinkling index for the workpiece in response to the processor producing the computer simulation; compare the WI to a WI threshold; and generate a wrinkling failure signal in response to the processor determining that the WI is less than the WI threshold; determine an WI for the workpiece in response to the processor producing the altered computer simulation; and generate a wrinkling acceptance signal in response to the processor determining that one of the WI and the altered WI is less than the WI threshold; and a display device electrically coupled to the processor and configured to: indicate that the workpiece does not have the fracture and/or the wrinkle in response to the display device receiving the wrinkling acceptance signal, such that the processor sends the wrinkling acceptance signal to a die manufacturing device for transforming a tool material into the die associated with one of the WI and the altered WI that is greater than the WI threshold.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Kim teaches that by determining the condition of the mold material, the ability to minimize replacement cost and the time required for replacement can be accomplished. This allows a way for a user to minimize the mold manufacturing time (Kim Pg. 2, 2nd – 3rd paragraph, “It is important to maintain the quality of the molded product produced by separating, etc.”).
With respect to claim 18, the combination of Sheng et al. and Kim discloses the system of claim 17 above, and Sheng et al. further discloses “wherein the processor is configured to receive the data associated with the part design, with the data comprising at least one of a geometry of the stamped part and at least one material property of the sheet metal forming the stamped part.” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0006] “In one aspect, the processor is configured to receive data associated with the part design, with the data including a geometry of the stamped part and one or more material properties of the sheet metal forming the stamped part.”)];
With respect to claim 19, the combination of Sheng et al. and Kim discloses the system of claim 17 above, and Sheng et al. further discloses “wherein the processor is configured to generate a bead affect stretching failure signal in response to the processor determining that the SI of the bead affect portion is greater than the SI threshold” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0005] “The processor is further configured to generate a stretching failure signal, in response to the processor determining that the stretching index for at least one of the bead affect portion, the trimmed edge portion, and the plane stress portion is above the index threshold.”, Sheng et al. paragraph [0007] “In another aspect, the processor is configured to generate a bead affect stretching failure signal, in response to the processor determining that the stretching index of the bead affect portion is above the index threshold.”)];
“and the display device indicates that the fracture is disposed in the bead affect portion in response to the display device receiving the bead affect stretching failure signal from the processor.” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0007] “In another aspect, the processor is configured to generate a bead affect stretching failure signal, in response to the processor determining that the stretching index of the bead affect portion is above the index threshold. The display device indicates that the fracture is disposed in the bead affect portion, in response to the display device receiving the bead affect stretching failure signal from the processor.”)];
With respect to claim 20, the combination of Sheng et al. and Kim discloses the system of claim 17 above, and Sheng et al. further discloses “wherein the processor is configured to generate a trimmed edge stretching failure signal in response to the processor determining that the SI of the trimmed edge portion is greater than the SI threshold” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0008] “In another aspect, the processor is configured to generate a trimmed edge stretching failure signal, in response to the processor determining that the stretching index of the trimmed edge portion is above the index threshold.”)];
“and the display device indicates that the fracture is disposed in the trimmed edge portion in response to the display device receiving the trimmed edge stretching failure signal from the processor.” as [Sheng et al. (paragraph [0008] “In another aspect, the processor is configured to generate a trimmed edge stretching failure signal, in response to the processor determining that the stretching index of the trimmed edge portion is above the index threshold. The display device indicates that the fracture is disposed in the trimmed edge portion, in response to the display device receiving the trimmed edge stretching failure signal from the processor.”)];
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The relevance of Du et al. (CN 106599446) is a plate-shell material instability limit diagram of establishing method and system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD E COTHRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5594. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -5:30PM EST M-F.
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 F 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.
/BERNARD E COTHRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights