DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “the intermediate formed body includes a first slack portion and a second slack portion on both sides of an included-angle center line… [and] the included-angle center line bisecting an angle between a first side and a second side that are located on both sides of the ridge line portion of the target formed body” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the intermediate formed body includes an “included-angle center line” that is located between portions of the target formed body that is formed after the intermediate formed body. Further, it is not clear what the included-angle center line would even be in the intermediate body since it appears to be a line that is defined by its relationship to features in the target formed body. For the purpose of examination, the included-angle center line will be interpreted as a line between the first and second slack portions. Claims 2-5 depend from claim 1 and fail to clarify the indefinite language.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “the intermediate formed body includes an inner region at a portion around the included-angle center line” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is required for something to be “around” the included-angle center line, i.e., does around mean near the center line or surrounding the center line. If “around” is meant to mean near the center line, then it is unclear how far out the inner region would extend to still be around, i.e., near, the center line. For the purpose of examination, this phrase will be interpreted as the inner region surrounds the included-angle line. Claims 3-4 depend from claim 2 and fails to clarify indefinite language.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “drawing the included-angle center line at a position bisecting the angle between the first side and second side that are located on both sides of the ridgeline portion of the target body” which renders the claim indefinite because it is directed to determining a shape of the intermediate body and therefore the target body does not exist yet, i.e., the intermediate body is later formed into the target body, and thus it is unclear how the included-angle center line can be positioned between the sides of the target body. For the purpose of examination, the included-angle center line will be interpreted in the same manner discussed in claim 1. The claim further recites drawing “an imaginary upper-die profile line” and “an imaginary line orthogonal to the included-angle center line” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how these lines are imaginary while the other lines, i.e., the included-angle center line and the first tangent line, are not imaginary. Further, if these lines are being drawn then they are real in some sense which makes it unclear how they are imaginary. For the purpose of examination, these lines will be interpreted as real lines because they are being drawn on to the intermediate body. Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and fails to clarify indefinite language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0338618 A1 to Akiba in view of DE 10 2014 017920 to Cacek.
Regarding claim 1, Akiba teaches a press forming method (Abstract) comprising:
pressing a plate material 10 to form an intermediate formed body 12 including an intermediate ridge line portion 26 with an edge radius larger than an edge radius of a ridge line portion 24 of a target formed body 14 (Figs. 1-3; Para. [0023]); and
pressing the intermediate formed body 12 to form the target formed body 14 including the ridge line portion 24 (Figs. 2-3; Para. [0023]),
wherein, in a cross section of the intermediate formed body 12 along a direction orthogonal to an extending direction of the ridge line portion 26, the intermediate formed body includes a first slack portion 12e and a second slack portion 12a on both sides of an included-angle center line (Figs. 2-3; Para. [0023]), the first slack portion 12e bulging more outward in a direction of the edge radius than the target formed body (Fig. 3; Para. [0023]), the included-angle center line bisecting an angle between a first side and a second side that are located on both sides of the ridge line portion of the target formed body (Figs. 2-3; as discussed in the indefiniteness rejection above, the included-angle center line is interpreted as a line between the first and second slack portions of the intermediate body).
Akiba fails to explicitly teach a second slack portion bulging more outward in a direction of the edge radius than the target formed body. While Akiba, teaches the first slack portion bulges more outward than the target formed body (Figs. 2-3), the second slack portion is not shown as also bulging outward.
Cacek teaches a method of forming a metal part with a ridge line (Para. [0003]; Fig. 1) including the steps of pressing a plate material to form an intermediate body (Fig. 1; Paras. [0008], [0012] and [0023]-[0024]) and pressing the intermediate body to form a target body (Figs. 1-3; Paras. [0008], [0013] and [0027]), wherein the intermediate body includes a first slack portion and a second slack portion that each bulge more outward in a direction of the edge radius than the target formed body (Fig. 1; Paras. [0012], [0014] and [0023]-[0024]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the press forming method of Akiba to include the second slack portion also bulging outward as taught by Cacek so that the final product may be formed without thinning out the material (Cacek, Para. [0024]) thus allowing the product to be stronger while still having a defined edge.
Regarding claim 2, modified Akiba teaches the press forming method according to claim 1 (Figs. 1-3), wherein the intermediate formed body 12 includes an inner region at a portion around the included-angle center line (Fig. 3; Para. [0023]; the region around 12D is in the inner region which is around the included-angle center line), the inner region deviating more inward in the direction of the edge radius than the target formed body (Fig. 3; Para. [0023]), and a first maximum deviation in a press stroke direction between the intermediate formed body 12 and the target formed body 14 in the inner region is larger than a second maximum deviation in the press stroke direction between the intermediate formed body and the target formed body in each of the first slack portion and the second slack portion (Figs. 3 and 5C; Para. [0034]; Fig. 5C shows the press forming method applied to the formation of an automobile part, and the first deviation Ha in the inner region is larger than the deviation Hc in the slack portions, and it is noted that modified Akiba includes the first and second slack portions bulging more outwardly).
Regarding claim 5, modified Akiba teaches the press forming method according to claim 1 (Figs. 1-3), wherein a maximum inclination angle of the intermediate ridge line 12d portion of the intermediate formed body 12 is smaller than a maximum inclination angle of the target formed body 14 (Fig. 3; it is noted that this claim does not note any particular part of the target formed body and therefore it may be the maximum inclination angle anywhere, and Fig. 3 shows that the maximum inclination angle of the ridge line 26 is less than the inclination angle of the ridge line 24 in the target body).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record alone or in combination fails to explicitly teach drawing the included-angle center line, an imaginary upper-die profile line, a first tangent line, and an imaginary line orthogonal to the included-angle center line, as recited in claim 3 from which claim 4 depends. It is noted that the specification discusses the drawing of the lines in Para. [0061] which simply states that these lines are drawn. Therefore, these limitations are interpreted as method steps in which the lines are actually drawn on to the intermediate body, i.e., a user or machine draws each of these lines on to the workpiece.
Akiba teaches a method of forming an intermediate body having the structural features of the recited intermediate body (as discussed in the rejections above), however this reference is silent regarding drawing any of these lines on to the intermediate body. While each of these lines exist on the intermediate workpiece, there is not a step of drawing these lines on to it and it would not be obvious to do so without the use of impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP 5959702 teaches a press forming method including forming an intermediate body (Figs. 1-3) and then forming the intermediate body into a target body (Figs. 3-4) in which the intermediate body includes first and second slack regions that bulge outwardly relative to the target body on either side of the intermediate ridge line (Figs. 38-39 and 44). WO 2020/195591 A1 (US 2022/0152682 A1 is relied upon for the translation of this document) teaches press forming an intermediate body (Figs. 1-2 and 4) and forming the intermediate body into a target body (Figs. 2-4) wherein the intermediate body includes an intermediate ridge line portion with an edge radius larger than an edge radius of a ridge line portion of a target formed body (Fig. 4) and a first slack section that bulges outwardly more than the target formed body (Fig. 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-6722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chris Templeton can be reached at (571)270-1477. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW STEPHENS/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725