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 .
Election/Restrictions
The restriction requirement, mailed 12/4/25 is withdrawn on because the applicant’s arguments are persuasive, Species I-IV and VI-XIII have been reinstated and claims 1-30 are being examined.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 8/15/23 are accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/15/23 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-7, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental steps involving choosing a user-specified design wall angle, θc, that prevents tearing of the sheet metal part due to excessive wall thinning during the ISF manufacturing process, wherein the user-specified design wall angle, θc, is less than or equal to about 60° (claims 4 and 6), these limitations as described in [0070]-[0072] and [0169]-[0170] is recited in high level of generality constitutes as a mental process, such as an evaluation or judgement, that can be performed in the human mind. The claim(s) also recite(s) mathematical concepts of generating an addendum surface that surrounds and extends the CAD geometry; wherein the addendum surface has a constant slope everywhere, wherein the addendum surface has no regions of self-intersection, extracting one or more part outer edge loops from the CAD geometry; generating one or more contiguous buffer zone surfaces around the one or more part outer edge loops; wherein the one or more contiguous buffer zone surfaces have one or more buffer zone edge slopes that match corresponding part outer edge slopes at every position along the one or more part outer edge loops, wherein the addendum surface has a wall angle, θc that is constant everywhere on the addendum surface; and wherein the wall angle, θc is equal to the user-specified design wall angle, θc, generating a trimmed flat base for the addendum surface by removing any portions of the addendum surface that lie below the user-specified Z-trimming coordinate value, computationally joining the sheet metal part surface, the buffer zone surface, and the addendum surface in a contiguous fashion to make a reference surface; smoothing the reference surface to remove any surface discontinuities by performing one or more iterations of a Laplace, Laplace-Beltrami, or Taubin mesh smoothing algorithm, calculating a set of x, y, and z-coordinate values for the addendum surface wherein the coordinates are defined such that all wall angles, θ of the addendum surface are equal to the user-specified design wall angle, θc; generating the addendum surface using the set of x, y, and calculated z-coordinate values (claims 1-3, 5, 7-9 and 11), these limitations as described in [0019]-[0031] and [0152]-[0158] constitutes details of mathematical calculations, thus, it falls into the “mathematical concepts” group of abstract ideas see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), (claims 19, 21-28, 32 and 34-35).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of providing a Computer Aided Design (CAD) geometry of the sheet metal part to be formed, providing a user-specified design wall angle, θc; providing a user-specified Z-trimming coordinate value; providing a Computer Aided Design (CAD) geometry of a sheet metal part to be formed; providing a user-specified design wall angle, θc (claims 1, 5, 7 and 11) represent mere data transmission which is an insignificant extrasolution activity.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the insignificant extra-solution activity of data transmission is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, see mpep 2106.05(d), infra applied prior art, references cited.
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 4, 6 and 27-30 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.
The term “excessive wall trimming” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “excessive wall trimming” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of the examination, the examiner has interpreted “excessive wall trimming” in claim 4 as “wall trimming”.
Claim 27 recites non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions for executing a program that implements a computerized method, it is not clear how a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions by itself can perform the method. Therefore, claim 27 is unclear and indefinite, the examiner suggested to amend the claim to recite “a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to…” to overcome the rejection.
Claims 6 and 28-30, included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiency of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claim above.
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) 1-2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200065431 to Apanovitch et al. (hereinafter “Apanovitch”), in view of US10775771 to Elford.
As for claim 1, Apanovitch substantially discloses a computer-implemented method of generating an addendum surface for use in forming a sheet metal part by using an Incremental Sheet Forming (ISF) manufacturing process (Apanovitch, see [0061]-[0063]), wherein the method comprises:
providing a Computer Aided Design (CAD) geometry of the sheet metal part to be formed (Apanovitch, see [0059] and [0061]-[0063] for using part designs established in the CAD environment, to form the component designs); and
generating an addendum surface that surrounds and extends the CAD geometry (Apanovitch, see [0061]-[0063]);
wherein the addendum surface has slope (Apanovitch, see Fig. 4B and [0144]-[0146] for the addendum surface generated having slope with respect to z-axis).
Apanovitch does not explicitly disclose wherein the generated surface has a constant slope everywhere.
However, Elford in an analogous art discloses wherein the generated surface has a constant slope everywhere (Elford, see Fig. 5A-Fig. 5B and col. 17 lines 27-45, it is noted that synchronized slope reads on constant slope as claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Elford into the method of Apanovitch. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide incremental sheet forming (ISF) manufacturing, of parts, that result in formed parts with decreased surface imperfections, improved shape definition, improved quality, reduced need for additional surface treatment processes (Elford, see col. 1 lines 50-54).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Apanovitch further discloses wherein the addendum surface has no regions of self-intersection (Elford, see Fig. 5A-Fig. 5B and col. 17 lines 27-45).
As per claim 10, Apanovitch substantially discloses a computer-implemented method of forming a sheet metal part using an Incremental Sheet Forming (ISF) manufacturing process (Apanovitch, see [0061]-[0063]), wherein the method comprises:
providing a Computer-Aided Design (CAD) geometry of a sheet metal part to be formed (Apanovitch, see [0059] and [0061]-[0063] for using part designs established in the CAD environment, to form the component designs);
generating an addendum surface that surrounds and extends the CAD geometry (Apanovitch, see, [0061]-[0063])
wherein the addendum surface has a slope (Apanovitch, see Fig. 4B and [0144]-[0146]);
manufacturing one or more underform tools, each of which has an underform tool surface geometry that is coincident with at least part of the addendum surface and/or the sheet metal part surfaces (Apanovitch, see [0033], Fig. 4B and [0144]-[0148]); and
incrementally sheet forming the sheet metal part over the one or more underform tools (Apanovitch, see [0007] and [0033]).
Apanovitch does not explicitly disclose the surface has a fixed slope everywhere. However, Elford in an analogous art discloses the surface has a fixed slope everywhere (Elford, see Fig. 5A-Fig. 5B and col. 17 lines 27-46, it is noted that synchronized slope reads on constant slope as claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Elford into the method of Apanovitch. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide incremental sheet forming (ISF) manufacturing, of parts, that result in formed parts with decreased surface imperfections, improved shape definition, improved quality, reduced need for additional surface treatment processes (Elford, see col. 1 lines 50-54).
Claim(s) 4-6 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apanovitch, in view of Elford, further in view of “The Formability of Perforated TA1 Sheet in Single Point Incremental Forming” to Li et al. (hereinafter “Li”).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Elford further discloses choosing a user-specified design parameter (Elford, see col. 9 lines 13-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Elford into the method of Apanovitch. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide incremental sheet forming (ISF) manufacturing, of parts, that result in formed parts with decreased surface imperfections, improved shape definition, improved quality, reduced need for additional surface treatment processes (Elford, see col. 1 lines 50-54).
The combination of Apanovitch and Elford does not explicitly disclose a design wall angle, θc, that prevents tearing of the sheet metal part due to excessive wall thinning during the ISF manufacturing process.
However, Li in an analogous art discloses a design wall angle, θc, that prevents tearing of the sheet metal part due to excessive wall thinning during the ISF manufacturing process (Li, see pages 1 and 13-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Li into the above combination of Apanovitch and Elford. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide the parts with uniform thickness distribution and good geometric accuracy (Li, see page 1).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Apanovitch further discloses the addendum surface has a wall angle (Apanovitch, see Fig. 4B and [0144]-[0148]). Elford further discloses providing a user specified parameter, wherein the surface has a wall angle, θ that is constant everywhere on the surface (Elford, see col. 9 lines 13-23 and Fig. 5A-Fig. 5B and col. 17 lines 27-46 for the surface that is being generated has a wall angle, θ that is constant everywhere on the surface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Elford into the method of Apanovitch. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide incremental sheet forming (ISF) manufacturing, of parts, that result in formed parts with decreased surface imperfections, improved shape definition, improved quality, reduced need for additional surface treatment processes (Elford, see col. 1 lines 50-54).
The combination of Apanovitch and Elford does not explicitly disclose design parameter being design wall angle, θc, wherein the wall angle, θ is equal to the design wall angle, θc. However, Li in an analogous art discloses design parameter being design wall angle, θc, wherein the wall angle, θ is equal to the design wall angle, θc (Li, see pages 1 and 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Li into the above combination of Apanovitch and Elford. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide the parts with uniform thickness distribution and good geometric accuracy (Li, see page 1).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated, Elford further discloses the user-specified design (Elford, see col. 9 lines 13-23 and Fig. 5A-Fig. 5B and col. 17 lines 27-58).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Elford into the method of Apanovitch. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide incremental sheet forming (ISF) manufacturing, of parts, that result in formed parts with decreased surface imperfections, improved shape definition, improved quality, reduced need for additional surface treatment processes (Elford, see col. 1 lines 50-54).
Li further discloses the design wall angle, θc, is less than or equal to about 60° (Li, see pages 1 and 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Li into the above combination of Apanovitch and Elford. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide the parts with uniform thickness distribution and good geometric accuracy (Li, see page 1).
As per claim 11, Apanovitch substantially discloses a computer-implemented method of generating an addendum surface for use in forming a sheet metal part using an Incremental Sheet Forming (ISF) manufacturing process (Apanovitch, see [0061]-[0063]), wherein the method comprises:
providing a Computer Aided Design (CAD) geometry of a sheet metal part to be formed (Apanovitch, see [0059] and [0061]-[0063] for using part designs established in the CAD environment, to form the component designs);
calculating values for the addendum surface, generating the addendum surface (Apanovitch, see [0061]-[0063]).
Apanovitch does not explicitly disclose providing a user-specified design wall angle, θc; calculating a set of x, y, and z-coordinate values for the surface wherein the coordinates are defined such that all wall angles, θ of the addendum surface are equal to the user-specified design wall angle, θc; and generating the surface using the set of x, y, and calculated z-coordinate values.
However, Elford in an analogous art discloses providing a user-specified design parameter (Elford, see col. 9 lines 13-23); calculating a set of x, y, and z-coordinate values for the surface wherein the coordinates are defined such that all wall angles of the surface are equal to the wall angle (Elford, see col. 9 lines 13-40, it is noted that the function of Z that associates to each element of X and element of Y reads on calculating a set of x, y, and z-coordinate values for the surface wherein the coordinates are defined and see Fig. 5A-Fig. 5B and col. 17 lines 27-45, it is noted that synchronized slope reads on constant slope as claimed); and generating the surface using the set of x, y, and calculated z-coordinate values (Elford, see col. 9 lines 13-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Elford into the method of Apanovitch. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide incremental sheet forming (ISF) manufacturing, of parts, that result in formed parts with decreased surface imperfections, improved shape definition, improved quality, reduced need for additional surface treatment processes (Elford, see col. 1 lines 50-54).
The combination of Apanovitch and Elford does not explicitly disclose user-specified design wall angle, θc; calculating a set of values for the surface such that wall angles, θ of the addendum surface are equal to the design wall angle, θc. However, Li in an analogous art discloses a design wall angle, θc; calculating a set of values for the surface such that wall angles, θ of the addendum surface are equal to the design wall angle, θc (Li, see pages 1 and 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Li into the above combination of Apanovitch and Elford. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide the parts with uniform thickness distribution and good geometric accuracy (Li, see page 1).
As per claim 12, Apanovitch substantially discloses a computer-implemented method of forming a sheet metal repair patch using an Incremental Sheet Forming (ISF) manufacturing process (Apanovitch, see [0061]-[0063]), wherein the method comprises:
providing a Computer-Aided Design (CAD) geometry of a sheet to be formed (Apanovitch, see [0059] and [0061]-[0063] for using part designs established in the CAD environment, to form the component designs);
generating an addendum surface from the CAD geometry (Apanovitch, see [0061]-[0063]),
manufacturing an underform tool that includes the addendum surface (Apanovitch, see [0033], Fig. 4B and [0144]-[0148]); and
incrementally sheet forming the sheet metal over the underform tool (Apanovitch, see [0007] and [0033]).
Apanovitch does not explicitly disclose a sheet metal repair patch to be formed, providing a user-specified design wall angle, θc; wherein the addendum surface has a constant slope everywhere that is defined by the user-specified design wall angle, θc; forming the sheet metal repair patch.
However, Elford in an analogous art discloses a sheet metal repair patch to be formed and forming the sheet metal repair patch (Elford, see col. 22 lines 18-21), providing a user-specified design parameter (Elford, see col. 9 lines 13-23), wherein the surface has a constant slope everywhere (Elford, see Fig. 5A-Fig. 5B and col. 17 lines 27-45, it is noted that synchronized slope reads on constant slope as claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Elford into the method of Apanovitch. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide incremental sheet forming (ISF) manufacturing, of parts, that result in formed parts with decreased surface imperfections, improved shape definition, improved quality, reduced need for additional surface treatment processes (Elford, see col. 1 lines 50-54).
The combination of Apanovitch and Elford does not explicitly discloses a design wall angle, θc; wherein the addendum surface has slope that is defined by the user-specified design wall angle, θc. However, Li in an analogous art discloses a design wall angle, θc; wherein the addendum surface has slope that is defined by the user-specified design wall angle, θc (Li, see pages 1 and 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Li into the above combination of Apanovitch and Elford. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide the parts with uniform thickness distribution and good geometric accuracy (Li, see page 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7 and 9 would be allowable if the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action, is overcome and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 27 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 13-26 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 13-21
Regarding claim 13, the combination of the cited prior arts does not describe:
extracting one or more part outer edge loops from the part surface; receiving a user-specified buffer zone width; constructing one or more buffer zone surfaces by extending the one or more part outer edge loops by a distance equal to the user-specified buffer zone width in a direction that is constrained to lie within a local tangent space of the part surface at all points along the one or more part outer edge loops; extracting one or more buffer zone outer edge loops from the buffer zone surface; generating one or more planar loops by projecting the one or more buffer zone outer edge loops onto an XY datum plane; computing a modified distance field, f; generating the reference surface comprising a plurality of reference points with x, y and calculated z coordinate values that satisfy a condition that f=0, and manufacturing the sheet metal part from a sheet blank by using the reference surface with the sheet forming manufacturing process
Claims 22-26
Regarding claim 22, the combination of the cited prior arts does not describe:
providing an ISF machine that has a stylus tool; generating a reference surface of a sheet metal part, that has a part surface, wherein the reference surface includes a plurality of reference points; smoothing one or more discontinuities in the reference surface; trimming the reference surface with a trimming plane and removing all portions of the reference surface that lie below a user-specified Z-trimming coordinate value;
generating a stylus Z-level toolpath by using the smoothed and trimmed reference surface; exporting the stylus Z-level toolpath in a Computer Numerically Controlled (CNC) format that is compatible with a controller that controls operation of the ISF machine; and forming the sheet metal part from a sheet blank by programming and operating the incremental sheet forming machine to follow the stylus Z-level toolpath;
wherein the reference surface includes a union of the part surface, a contiguous buffer zone surface, and a contiguous addendum surface having a user-specified design wall angle, θc; and wherein the plurality of reference points on the contiguous addendum surface include a subset of a level set surface of a modified distance field, f; wherein f=0
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US7894929 discloses a method for creating addendums of tools for sheet metal formed parts wherein fill surfaces for the smoothing of irregular zones of a component edge are generated. Initial directions of sectional profiles are determined such that sectional profiles at a distance from one another are arranged along a component. An addendum is created connecting the sectional profiles.
US10573070 discloses methods are provided for generating a surface that approximates one or more CAD surfaces. An input that approximates the one or more CAD surfaces via a plurality of triangles is received. A mesh of equilateral triangles is generated on the input, with the mesh including vertices that lie on the input. Vertices of the mesh are moved to generate a control mesh, the control mesh having a corresponding limit surface that passes through all of the vertices of the mesh. A local refinement is performed on one or more regions of the control mesh that have an error that is greater than a threshold value, where the local refinement causes the limit surface of the control mesh to more closely approximate the one or more CAD surfaces. The mesh is parameterized to generate a two-dimensional (2D) representation of the mesh.
US9168580 discloses a forming system includes first and second tools, moving assemblies, and a control unit. The moving assemblies move the first tool and the second tool relative to the sheet. The control unit is configured to control movement of the first tool and the second tool by the one or more moving assemblies by moving at least one of the first tool or the second tool in a first deformation direction to deform the sheet, then moving the first and second tools laterally relative to the sheet to a subsequent location while engaging the sheet, then moving at least one of the first tool or the second tool in the first deformation direction or an opposite second deformation direction to deform the sheet, and then continue moving the first and second tools to deform the sheet in order to create a three-dimensional component from the sheet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. PST.
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, Robert E. Fennema can be reached on (571)272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON LIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117