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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on 6/26/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 requires “the operating parameter is a distance between tool halves…”, but then claim 13 recites “the operating parameter is a speed and/or force…”. Therefore, claim 13 requires the operating parameter to be both a distance and a speed and/or force.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11, 15,17, 19, 21-25, and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0240470 A1 (hereinafter: ‘470) in view of Mangrulkar, U.S. Patent No. 5,423,199 A (hereinafter: ‘199).
As per claim 11, a method for determining an operating parameter of a tool for forming components in a press (e.g., See ‘470; [0015] – [0016], which discloses a press forming method using a press forming device and determining a processing condition for forming a material), including the following steps:
acquiring a semifinished product property for a given number of blanks from a set comprising a plurality of blanks (e.g., See ‘470; [0055], which discloses measuring sheet thickness for every blank);
ascertaining a mean value of the semifinished product property for the given number of blanks (e.g., Although ‘470 discloses blanks from the same coil having an average thickness, See [0057], ‘470 does not specifically disclose ascertaining a mean value from the acquired sheet thickness values of the given number of blanks. ‘199 discloses this missing feature by disclosing blank thickness data, a mean of the feature, and an X bar average for a subgroup in [0069] – [0071]);
selecting at least one blank, the semifinished product property of which is within a given interval about the mean value, from the set (e.g., Although ‘470 discloses measuring a sheet thickness for every blank, in [0055], ‘470 does not specifically disclose selecting a blank having the sheet thickness within an interval about the mean value. ‘199 discloses the missing statistical feature by disclosing a control mean and upper and lower control limits for blank thickness, in [0067] and [0069]. Therefore, applying ‘199 to ‘470 would have resulted in selecting a blank having the sheet thickness within the control limits about the mean);
forming the selected blank via the tool in the press to make a component, with the tool being operated with the operating parameter (e.g., See ‘470; [0058] – [0059], which discloses forming a blank using the processing condition, including a forming speed and a blank holding force. Although ‘470 does not specifically disclose that the blank is the selected blank selected according to the interval about the mean, that relationship results from applying the selection feature disclosed by ‘199 to the blanks formed by ‘470);
determining a deviation of the component shape of the component from a target value (e.g., See ‘470; [0049] – [0050], which disclose measuring a work piece deformation amount as a state variable and determining a deviation of the measured state variable from a reference value); and
adjusting or keeping the at least one operating parameter depending on the determined deviation (e.g., See ‘470; [0049] – [0050], which discloses correcting the processing condition according to the deviation of the measured state variable from the reference value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘199 into ‘470 for the purpose of identifying representative production material for setting forming conditions, thereby reducing variation cased by abnormal material properties.
As per claim 15, ‘470 in view of ‘199 further disclose that the semifinished product property is acquired by at least one sensor during a cutting and/or following the cutting of the respective blank from a coil (e.g., See ‘470; [0039] and [0042] – [0043], which discloses a material characteristic measurement arrangement and directly measuring sheet thickness after material is cut from a coiled material. Under BRI, the material characteristic measurement arrangement corresponds to the claimed sensor).
As per claim 17, ‘470 in view of ‘199 further disclose that the set of blanks are provided as blanks for a series production, with the result that the selected blank is a blank taken from series production (e.g., See ‘199; [0062], which discloses steel having properties representative of production stock and operating the stamping press to produce production parts. Applying the selection feature of claim 11 to the production stock would result in the selected blank being taken from series production).
As per claim 19, ‘470 in view of ‘199 further disclose that the given number of blanks is equal to the number of blanks in the set (e.g., See ‘470; [0055] and [0064], which discloses measuring the sheet thickness for every blank and using about 1000 blanks from the same coil. Therefore, for the set of about 1000 blanks, measuring every blank will result in the given number equaling the number of blanks in the set).
As per claim 21, ‘470 in view of ‘199 further disclose that the semifinished product property comprises a sheet thickness of the blank (e.g., See’470; [0055], which discloses measuring sheet thickness for every blank).
As per claim 22, ‘470 in view of ‘199 further disclose that the mean value comprises an arithmetic mean of the semifinished product property (e.g., See ‘199; [0071], which discloses an X bar as the average of the values in a subgroup, calculated from the subgroup data points).
As per claim 23, ‘470 in view of ‘199 further disclose that the given interval is defined as a percentage deviation from the mean value (e.g., See ‘470; [0045] – [0046], which discloses expressing a material characteristics deviation relative to a reference value as P divided by P0 minus 1 and describes the sheet thickness as 1 percent above the reference value. Applying this percentage deviation to the mean value established by ‘199 would define the interval as a percentage deviation about the mean value).
As per claim 24, ‘470 in view of ‘199 further disclose that the given interval is defined as a multiple of a standard deviation about the mean value (e.g., See ‘199; [0067], which discloses upper and lower control limits for sheet thickness calculated as 3 times the standard deviation about the control mean).
As per claim 25, ‘470 in view of ‘199 further disclose that the semifinished product property comprises retrieving values of the semifinished product property stored in a storage device (e.g., See ‘470; [0068], which discloses storing sheet thickness in an IC tag and reading the stored sheet thickness with an IC tag reader).
As per claim 27, ‘470 in view of ‘199 further disclose blanks having a semifinished product property outside the given interval about the mean value are excluded from the determination of the operating parameter (e.g., See ‘199; [0069], which discloses that blank thickness within the control limits is in control and that material exceeding the limits is outside statistical control. Therefore, applying the selection feature of claim 11 would obviously exclude blanks that are outside the interval from the determination using the selected blank).
As per claim 28, ‘470 in view of ‘199 further disclose that the blank comprises a metal sheet cut from a coil (e.g., See ’70; [0042] and [0055], which disclose material cut from a coiled material and a thin steel plate used as the blank material).
As per claim 29, ‘470 in view of ‘199 further disclose that the tool comprises a shaping tool and the press comprises a shaping press (e.g., See ‘470; [0015], which discloses a press forming device having a punch, a die, and a blank holder for press forming a material).
As per claim 30, ‘470 in view of ‘199 further disclose that the component comprises a body component or outer skin component for a motor vehicle (e.g., See ‘199; [0006], which discloses sheet metal automobile body parts, including fenders and quarter panels, formed from metal blanks using stamping presses).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0240470 A1 (hereinafter: ‘470) in view of Mangrulkar, U.S. Patent No. 5,423,199 A (hereinafter: ‘199), as applied to claim 1, from above, and further in view of Modesto, U.S. Patent No. US 6,564,702 B1 (hereinafter: ‘702).
As per claim 12, although ‘470 in view of ‘199 discloses determining and controlling a processing condition for the press forming operation, the combination does not specifically disclose that the operating parameter is a distance between tool halves of the tool, between which the respective blank is introduced for the purpose of forming the component.
‘702 discloses the missing feature by disclosing a shut height that provides a necessary distance between an upper die and a lower die and is automatically adjusted by a height servo (e.g., See ‘702; [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘702 into ‘470 in view of ‘199 for the purpose of automatically setting die spacing for a forming job, thereby improving repeatability of the overall press setup.
As per claim 13, ‘470 as modified by ‘199 and ‘702 further disclose that the operating parameter is a speed and/or force, by means of which the tool halves are moved toward one another (e.g., See ‘470; [0016], which discloses a punch or die movement speed as a processing condition).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0240470 A1 (hereinafter: ‘470) in view of Mangrulkar, U.S. Patent No. 5,423,199 A (hereinafter: ‘199), as applied to claim 1, from above, and further in view of Fornwalt, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0145404 A1 (hereinafter: ‘504).
As per claim 14, although ‘470 in view of ‘199 discloses determining and controlling a processing condition for forming a blank, the combination does not specifically disclose the operating parameter being an insertion position of the blank in the tool.
‘504 discloses this missing feature by disclosing inserting a blank into a drawing die and pressing the blank into a predetermined position (e.g., See ‘504; [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘504 into ‘470 in view of ‘199 for the purpose of controlling blank position before forming, thereby reducing defects caused by incorrect blank placement.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0240470 A1 (hereinafter: ‘470) in view of Mangrulkar, U.S. Patent No. 5,423,199 A (hereinafter: ‘199), as applied to claim 1, from above, and further in view of Zwickl, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0283861 A1 (hereinafter: ‘861).
As per claim 16, although ‘470 in view of ‘199 discloses determining and controlling a processing condition for the press forming operation, the combination does not specifically disclose the operating parameter as a shape of the tool.
‘861 discloses this missing feature by disclosing tool geometry as the shape of punch, die, and blank holder, with variable radii, draw beads, tool inlays, and polishing (e.g., See ‘861; [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘861 into ‘470 in view of ‘199 for the purpose of adjusting tool geometry to improve formed part quality, thereby reducing defects during press forming.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0240470 A1 (hereinafter: ‘470) in view of Mangrulkar, U.S. Patent No. 5,423,199 A (hereinafter: ‘199), as applied to claim 1, from above, and further in view of Yashima, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0062676 A1 (hereinafter: ‘676).
As per claim 18, although ‘470 in view of ‘199 discloses determining and controlling a processing condition for the press forming operation, the combination does not specifically disclose using a different press for determining the operating parameters.
‘676 discloses this missing feature by disclosing use of a hydraulic trial press to try out a metal mold for a mechanical press used for mass production (e.g., See ‘676; [0001] – [0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘676 into ‘470 in view of ‘199 for the purpose of determining forming conditions on a trial press before production, thereby reducing setup and correction work on the production press.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0240470 A1 (hereinafter: ‘470) in view of Mangrulkar, U.S. Patent No. 5,423,199 A (hereinafter: ‘199), as applied to claim 1, from above, and further in view of Zwickl, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0283861 A1 (hereinafter: ‘861).
As per claim 20, although ‘470 in view of ‘199 discloses determining a processing condition for forming a blank, the combination does not specifically disclose subsequently using that operating parameter with a further press and or further tool.
‘861 provides this missing teaching by disclosing the tailoring of tools and adjusting process parameters through physical tryouts and then deploying the tools to an actual production line using the process parameters (e.g., See ‘861; [0002] – [0004]). Therefore, applying the process parameters determined during tryout to the tools deployed on the production line would obviously result in operating production equipment using the determined operating parameter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘861 into ‘470 in view of ‘199 for the purpose of applying forming conditions formed during tool tryout to production equipment, thereby improving consistency during production.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0240470 A1 (hereinafter: ‘470) in view of Mangrulkar, U.S. Patent No. 5,423,199 A (hereinafter: ‘199), as applied to claim 1, from above, and further in view of Schneider, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0243808 A1 (hereinafter: ‘808).
As per claim 26, although ‘470 in view of ‘199 discloses selecting a blank based on the sheet thickness being within the interval about the mean value, the combination does not specifically disclose performing the selection with an electronic computing device.
‘808 discloses an electronic control unit that processes measured sheet thickness values and determines a target position for a sheet metal blank based on the measured thickness profile (e.g., See ‘808; [0022] – [0023] and [0037] – [0039]). Therefore, applying ‘808s electronic control unit to the selection feature of ‘470 in view of ‘199 would obviously result in the electronic control unit performing the blank selection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘808 into ‘470 in view of ‘199 for the purpose of electronically applying measured sheet thickness information when selecting a blank, thereby improving selection consistency and reducing manual processing.
References Considered but Not Relied Upon
The following references were considered but were not relied upon with respect to any prior art rejections:
(1) US 6,769,280 B2, which discloses using sensors on forming tools to measure sheet “draw in” in real time and feed that data back to control the forming process;
(2) US 2022/0008979 A1, which discloses controlling press cushion force and gap through the stroke using sensors and feedback, including adapting to different blank thickness conditions;
(3) US 2004/0176863 A1, which discloses stamping a trial part, measuring its shape, and comparing it to the intended design, and iteratively changing the die until the variance is acceptable;
(4) US 11,020786 B2, which discloses applying and controlling restraining force during forming to manage material flow and improve formed part quality; and
(5) US 2018/0372471 A1, which discloses measuring sheet thickness and thickness variation with multiple detection units and a position sensor to characterize sheet material before downstream operations occur.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD D HARTMAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 4:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. 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.
/RONALD D HARTMAN JR/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119 October 7, 2026
/RDH/
