CTNF 18/708,859 CTNF 83891 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 The information disclosure statement (IDS) were submitted on May 9, 2024 and April 4, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The paragraph 0027 of the specification recites “[s]hade of color in Fig. 5 expresses unevenness.” However, no color drawing has been filed. It is not clear what shade of color the specification was referring to . Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) and their corresponding algorithm and structure is/are: A first shape acquisition unit in claim 17 and its dependent claims 18-21. The algorithm is found in paragraph 0022, step S1 and relevant paragraphs discussing step S1. A generation unit in claim 17 and its dependent claims 18-21. The algorithm is found in paragraph 0022, step S3 and relevant paragraphs discussing step S3. A second shape acquisition unit in claim 17 and its dependent claims 18-21. The algorithm is found in paragraph 0022, step S5 and relevant paragraphs discussing step S5. A deviation amount acquisition unit in claim 17 and its dependent claims 18-21. The algorithm is found in paragraph 0022, step S7 and relevant paragraphs discussing step S7. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Double Patenting 08-29 Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822. 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claim 12 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18712807 as the referencing claim anticipates claim 12 as presented in the table below. Present application 18712807 (New) A press forming analysis method for predicting an influence of a shape variation of a blank taken from a metal sheet having the shape variation in a case where press forming is performed by using the blank, comprising: acquiring a shape of a press formed part after die release as a first shape by performing press forming analysis in a case where press forming is performed with a predetermined tool-of-press-forming model by using a flat blank model having a flat shape; generating a shape variation blank model corresponding to the shape variation; acquiring a shape of a press formed part after die release as a second shape by performing press forming analysis in a case where press forming is performed with the predetermined tool-of-press-forming model by using the shape variation blank model; and acquiring a portion where both of the first shape and the second shape deviate from each other and a deviation amount by comparing the first shape and the second shape. 1. (Original) A press forming analysis method for predicting an influence of a shape variation of a blank taken from a metal sheet having the shape variation in a case where press forming is performed by using the blank, comprising: a first shape generation step of generating a first shape having a same shape as an actual press formed part based on measurement data obtained by measuring a shape after die release of the actual press formed part, the actual press formed part being press-formed with a predetermined tool of press forming by using an actual blank taken from the metal sheet having the shape variation; a second shape acquisition step of acquiring a shape of a press formed part after die release as a second shape by performing press forming analysis in a case where press forming is performed with a tool-of-press-forming model having a same shape as the predetermined tool of press forming by using a flat blank model having a flat shape; and a deviation amount acquisition step of determining a portion where both the shapes deviate from each other and a deviation amount by comparing the second shape and the first shape with each other. Similarly, claim 14 can also be rejected by claim 1 of ‘807. Claim 16 can be also rejected by claim 4 of ‘807. Claim 17 can be also rejected by claim 5 of ‘807. Claim 19 can also be rejected by claim 5 of ‘807. Claim 21 can also be rejected by claim 8 of ‘807. Claim 22 can also be rejected by claim 10 of ‘807. 08-37 AIA Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18722202 as the referencing claim being an obvious variant of claim 13 in view of Zhu et al. US 20130041634. Claim 1 of ‘202 teaches all limitations of claim 13 of the present application except that the first blank generation step of generating a standard waveform blank model having a waveform with a predetermined wavelength and a predetermined amplitude in accordance with the shape variation. On the other hand, Zhu teaches the limitation at issue. It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to modify the claimed invention recited in claim 13 to include the limitation at issue because by doing so would create predictable results such as “to avoid the unpredictable occurrence of multiple equal likelihood bend shapes.” See Zhu, paragraph 0026. Claim 12 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of copending Application No. 18719451 as the referencing claim being anticipating claim 12 of the present application. Claim 12 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18994848 as the referencing claim being anticipating claim 12 of the present application . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes and mathematical concept/relationships. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the balance of the claims are directed to applying algorithms to a general finite element analysis tool. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the exception. Note that in the following discussion, the claims are annotated with alphabetic labels for discussion purpose. There is no implied execution sequences other than the original claimed meaning. As per claim 12, claim 12 recites: (preamble) A press forming analysis method for predicting an influence of a shape variation of a blank taken from a metal sheet having the shape variation in a case where press forming is performed by using the blank, comprising: acquiring a shape of a press formed part after die release as a first shape by performing press forming analysis in a case where press forming is performed with a predetermined tool-of-press-forming model by using a flat blank model having a flat shape; generating a shape variation blank model corresponding to the shape variation; acquiring a shape of a press formed part after die release as a second shape by performing press forming analysis in a case where press forming is performed with the predetermined tool-of-press-forming model by using the shape variation blank model; and acquiring a portion where both of the first shape and the second shape derivate from each other and a deviation amount by comparing the first shape and the second shape. Step 1. Claim 12 recites a method which falls within the statutory category. Step 2A prong 1, claim 12 sets forth gathering the results of using the mathematical analysis (FEM) on the different shape models and the limitation (d) of acquiring a portion by comparing the first shape and second shape which falls within the enumerated grouping of mental process and/or mathematical concepts and relationships. Step 2A prong 2, the additional elements of the claim 12 include the preamble, limitations (a), (b), and (c). The preamble is merely apply the judicial exception to a general finite element analysis tool on a pressing forming analysis. See specification 0025. The limitations (a), (b), and (c) are merely data gathering steps for the algorithm. Cf. MPEP 2106.05(g). “performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989).” Similarly, here, the limitations (a)-(c) are gather gathering steps to collect data on the shapes so that the differences of the shapes of the blanks can be identified in the limitation (d). They do not integrate the identified judicial exception into practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B, when consider whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significant more than the judicial exception, the additional elements when taken individually and in combination are still merely apply the judicial exception to a general finite element analysis tool and data gathering steps. Thus claim 12 is rejected under 35 USC 101. As per claim 13, and also applied from claim 12, claim 13 further limit the shape variation blank model which is part of the mathematical concept and relationships. As per claim 14, and also applied from claim 12, claim 14 further limits shape variation blank model which is part of the mathematical concepts and relationships. As per claim 15, and also applied from claim 12, claim 15 further limits the mathematical calculation on the deviation amount, which is part of the mathematical concepts and relationships. As per claim 16, and also applied from claim 12, claim 16 further limits comparing the deviation amount to a preset threshold which is part of the mathematical concepts and relationships. As per claim 17, claim 17 recites an apparatus performing the method recited in claim 12; therefore, the rejection made to claim 12 can also be applied to claim 17. The additional element of computer when invoking 112(f) would be merely apply the judicial exception to a generic FEM tool. As per claim 18, and also applied from claim 17, claim 18 further limit the shape variation blank model which is part of the mathematical concept and relationships. As per claim 19, and also applied from claim 17, claim 19 further limits shape variation blank model which is part of the mathematical concepts and relationships. As per claim 20, and also applied from claim 17, claim 20 further limits the mathematical calculation on the deviation amount, which is part of the mathematical concepts and relationships. As per claim 21, and also applied from claim 17, claim 21 further limits comparing the deviation amount to a preset threshold which is part of the mathematical concepts and relationships. As per claim 22, claim 22 recites a non-transitory computer readable recording medium performing the method recited in claim 12; therefore, the rejection made to claim 12 can also be applied to claim 17. The computer readable medium on which an executable program for performing the method would be merely apply the judicial exception to a generic FEM program. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim (s) 12, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1) and (a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Kubli et al US 2006287755 (herein after referred as Kubli) . As per claim 12, Kubli teaches: 12. (New) A press forming analysis method (Kubli, e.g. paragraph 0001, “The invention is related to the field of configuring tools and/or processes for metal forming. It concerns a method, a data processing system and a computer program for configuring tools and processes for the manufacturing of formed metal parts, as well as to a data carrier” and paragraph 0003, “These simulate, respectively, model a metal forming process by means of finite elements on the basis of simulation parameters.”) for predicting an influence of a shape variation of a blank taken from a metal sheet having the shape variation (Kubli, e.g. paragraph 0016, “As a result it becomes visible how the probability of a material tear or fracture behaves in the case of a variation of the simulation parameters”) in a case where press forming is performed by using the blank (Kubli, e.g. paragraph 0002, “By means of presses, into which the sheet metal forming tools are inserted, the parts are formed.”) comprising: acquiring a shape of a press formed part after die release as a first shape by performing press forming analysis in a case where press forming is performed with a predetermined tool-of-press-forming model by using a flat blank model having a flat shape; (Kubli, e.g. abstract, “From a set of nominal simulation parameters (d,n) in a simulation run a set of raw data is calculated and saved”) generating a shape variation blank model corresponding to the shape variation; (Kubli, e.g. abstract, “the preceding step is repeated several times with a variation of the simulation parameters ( d,n)”) acquiring a shape of a press formed part after die release as a second shape by performing press forming analysis in a case where press forming is performed with the predetermined tool-of-press-forming model by using the shape variation blank model; (Kubli, e.g. abstract, and as a result of this further sets of raw data (r) are generated and saved) acquiring a portion where both of the first shape and the second shape deviate from each other and a deviation amount by comparing the first shape and the second shape. (Kubli, e.g. abtract, “a statistical analysis of several or of all the saved sets of raw data (r) is carried for out for the purpose of calculating statistical characteristic values (Cr) of the raw data (r). A visual depiction of at least one of the statistical characteristic values (Cr) of the raw data (r) is generated on a visual depiction of an object involved in the metal forming process, of a part prior to the metal forming process or of the tool geometry and paragraph 0015, “illustrates the material thickness of the nominal solution together with the simulated variation of the material thicknesses respective to the selected point”). As per claim 17, Kubli teaches the equivalent functional limitations of claim 17, in particular, 17. (New) A press forming analysis apparatus (Kubli, e.g. paragraph 0001, “The invention is related to the field of configuring tools and/or processes for metal forming. It concerns a method, a data processing system and a computer program for configuring tools and processes for the manufacturing of formed metal parts, as well as to a data carrier” and paragraph 0003, “These simulate, respectively, model a metal forming process by means of finite elements on the basis of simulation parameters.”) for predicting an influence of a shape variation of a blank taken from a metal sheet having the shape variation (Kubli, e.g. paragraph 0016, “As a result it becomes visible how the probability of a material tear or fracture behaves in the case of a variation of the simulation parameters”) in a case where press forming is performed by using the blank, (Kubli, e.g. paragraph 0002, “By means of presses, into which the sheet metal forming tools are inserted, the parts are formed.”) comprising: a first shape acquisition unit configured to acquire a shape of a press formed part after die release as a first shape by performing press forming analysis in a case where press forming is performed with a predetermined tool-of-press-forming model by using a flat blank model having a flat shape; (Kubli, e.g. abstract, “From a set of nominal simulation parameters (d,n) in a simulation run a set of raw data is calculated and saved”) a generation unit configured to generate a shape variation blank model corresponding to the shape variation; (Kubli, e.g. abstract, “the preceding step is repeated several times with a variation of the simulation parameters ( d,n)”) a second shape acquisition unit configured to acquire a shape of a press formed part after die release as a second shape by performing press forming analysis in a case where press forming is performed with the predetermined tool-of-press-forming model by using the shape variation blank model; (Kubli, e.g. abstract, and as a result of this further sets of raw data (r) are generated and saved) a deviation amount acquisition unit configured to acquire a portion where both of the first shape and the second shape deviate from each other and a deviation amount by comparing the first shape and the second shape. (Kubli, e.g. abstract, “a statistical analysis of several or of all the saved sets of raw data (r) is carried for out for the purpose of calculating statistical characteristic values (Cr) of the raw data (r). A visual depiction of at least one of the statistical characteristic values (Cr) of the raw data (r) is generated on a visual depiction of an object involved in the metal forming process, of a part prior to the metal forming process or of the tool geometry and paragraph 0015, “illustrates the material thickness of the nominal solution together with the simulated variation of the material thicknesses respective to the selected point”). As per claim 22, claim 22 recites a non-transitory computer readable recording medium on which an executable program performing the method recited in claim 12. Therefore, the rejection made to claim 12 is also applicable to claim 22 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kubli et al US 2006287755 in view of Zhu et al. US 20130041634, cited from IDS (herein after referred as Zhu). As per claim 13, and also applying from the rejection made to claim 12, Kubli does not explicitly teaches the limitation of wherein the shape variation blank model generated in the generation step has a cyclic waveform having a predetermined pitch and a predetermined amplitude. However, Zhu teaches the limitation of wherein the shape variation blank model generated in the generation step has a cyclic waveform having a predetermined pitch and a predetermined amplitude. See e.g. Zhu, paragraph 0026 and also Fig. 3A and 3B, “a user-specified initial imperfection is introduced . . . One example of the user-specified directives includes specifying a radius 322 and a vector to represent an axis of bending 321.” That is, Zhu teaches the predetermined waveform with a predetermined pitch, which is 1/4 of the wave length and predetermined wave height which is the radius. It would have been obvious to a PHOSTIA to modify Kubli to include the limitation at issue in view of Zhu because by doing so would produce predictable results such as “to avoid the unpredictable occurrence of multiple equal likelihood bend shapes.” See Zhu, paragraph 0026. As per claim 18, and also applying from the rejection made to claim 17, Kubli teaches the equivalent limitations from claim 17, however, it does not explicitly teach the limitation of wherein the shape variation blank model generated by the generation unit has a cyclic waveform having a predetermined pitch and a predetermined amplitude. However, Zhu teaches the limitation of wherein the shape variation blank model generated by the generation unit has a cyclic waveform having a predetermined pitch and a predetermined amplitude. See e.g. Zhu, paragraph 0026 and also Fig. 3A and 3B, “a user-specified initial imperfection is introduced . . . One example of the user-specified directives includes specifying a radius 322 and a vector to represent an axis of bending 321.” That is, Zhu teaches the predetermined waveform with a predetermined pitch, which is 1/4 of the wave length and predetermined wave height which is the radius. It would have been obvious to a PHOSTIA to modify Kubli to include the limitation at issue in view of Zhu because by doing so would produce predictable results such as “to avoid the unpredictable occurrence of multiple equal likelihood bend shapes.” See Zhu, paragraph 0026. Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kubli et al US 2006287755 in view of Schneider et al, “Validation and Optimization of Numerical Simulations by Optical Measurements of Tools and Parts”, International Deep Drawing Research Group, IDDRG 2008 International Conference, 16-18 June, 2008, Olofstrom, Sweden (hereinafter as Schneider). As per claim 14, and also applying from the rejection made to claim 12, Kubi does not explicitly teach the limitation of wherein the shape variation blank model is generated by measuring a shape of an actual blank taken from a metal sheet having a shape variation and referring to a measurement result. However, digitizing variation of the workpiece is well known in the art as shown in Schneider teaching that the shape variation blank model is generated by measuring a shape of an actual blank taken from a metal sheet having a shape variation and referring to a measurement result (Schneider, e.g. page 2, “GOM develops and distributes optical measuring systems with its main focus on applications like 3D digitizing, 3D coordinate measurements, deformation measurements and quality control. GOM systems are used for product development and for quality assurance, material and component testing. Current developments take care about the need for simulation verification of forming processes.” And also page 9, “the progress of iteration of the simulation was validated based on the comparison of the deviation of the convex surface areas”.) As such it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to modify Kubi in view of Schneider to include the limitation at issue because by doing so would produce predictable results such as improving simulation and measurement accuracy. See Schneider, page 6. As per claim 19, and also applying from the rejection made to claim 17, Kubli teaches the equivalent limitations from claim 17, however, it does not explicitly teach the limitation of wherein the shape variation blank model generated by the generation unit is generated based on a measured value of a shape of an actual blank taken from a metal sheet having a shape variation. However, digitizing variation of the workpiece is well known in the art as shown in Schneider teaching that wherein the shape variation blank model generated by the generation unit is generated based on a measured value of a shape of an actual blank taken from a metal sheet having a shape variation (Schneider, e.g. page 2, “GOM develops and distributes optical measuring systems with its main focus on applications like 3D digitizing, 3D coordinate measurements, deformation measurements and quality control. GOM systems are used for product development and for quality assurance, material and component testing. Current developments take care about the need for simulation verification of forming processes.” And also page 9, “the progress of iteration of the simulation was validated based on the comparison of the deviation of the convex surface areas”.) As such it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to modify Kubi in view of Schneider to include the limitation at issue because by doing so would produce predictable results such as improving simulation and measurement accuracy. See Schneider, page 6. Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kubli et al US 2006287755 in view of Shen et al., ”Springback Simulation and Tool Surface Compensation Algorithm for Sheet Metal Forming,” CP778 Volume A, Numisheet 2005, edited by L. M. Smith, F. Pourboghrat, J.-W. Yoon, and T. B. Stoughton (hereinafter referred as Shen). As per claim 15, and also applying from the rejection made to claim 12, Kubli does not explicitly teach the limitation of wherein the deviation amount is a difference between a springback amount of a predetermined portion in the first shape and a springback amount of a same portion as the predetermined portion of the first shape in the second shape. However, Shen teaches wherein the deviation amount is a difference between a springback amount of a predetermined portion in the first shape and a springback amount of a same portion as the predetermined portion of the first shape in the second shape. See, e.g. Shen section 3 and Fig. 1 where FEM modes are simulated and springback amount are compared iteratively. It would have been obvious to a PHOSTIA to modify Kubli in view of Shen to include the limitation at issue because doing so would produce predictable results such as accurately calculate the springback amount. See, e.g., Shen, abstract. As per claim 20, and also applying from the rejection made to claim 17, Kubli teaches the equivalent limitations from claim 17, however, it does not explicitly teach the limitation of wherein the deviation amount acquisition unit is configured to acquire, as the deviation amount, a difference between a springback amount of a predetermined portion in the first shape and a springback amount of a same portion as the predetermined portion of the first shape in the second shape. However, Shen teaches wherein the deviation amount acquisition unit is configured to acquire, as the deviation amount, a difference between a springback amount of a predetermined portion in the first shape and a springback amount of a same portion as the predetermined portion of the first shape in the second shape. See, e.g. Shen section 3 and Fig. 1 where FEM modes are simulated and springback amount are compared iteratively. It would have been obvious to a PHOSTIA to modify Kubli in view of Shen to include the limitation at issue because doing so would produce predictable results such as accurately calculate the springback amount. See, e.g., Shen, abstract. Claims 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kubli et al US 2006287755 in view of Starman, et at., “A method for Simultaneous Optimization of Blank Shape and Forming Tool Geometry in Sheet Metal Forming Simulations”, Starman, B.; Cafuta, G.; Mole, N. A Method for Simultaneous Optimization of Blank Shape and Forming Tool Geometry in Sheet Metal Forming Simulations. Metals, published March 26, 2021. (hereinafter referred as Starman). As per claim 16, and also applying from the rejection made to claim 12, Kubli does not explicitly teach the limitation of identifying a portion where the deviation amount exceeds a preset threshold as a portion requiring a countermeasure. On the other hand, Starman teaches the limitation of identifying a portion where the deviation amount exceeds a preset threshold as a portion requiring a countermeasure. See, e.g. Starman, section 4, that is, the blank shape is adjusted according to the simulated surface edge and desired edge geometry for each edge point proportionally. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to modify Kubli in view of Starman to include the limitation at issue because by doing so would produce predictable results such as effectively optimized the tool and blank shape within several iterations. See, Starman, abstract. As per claim 21, and also applying from the rejection made to claim 17, Kubli teaches the equivalent limitations from claim 17, however, it does not explicitly teach the limitation of an identification unit configured to identify a portion where the deviation amount exceeds a preset threshold as a portion requiring a countermeasure. On the other hand, Starman teaches the limitation of an identification unit configured to identify a portion where the deviation amount exceeds a preset threshold as a portion requiring a countermeasure. See, e.g. Starman, section 4, that is, the blank shape is adjusted according to the simulated surface edge and desired edge geometry for each edge point proportionally. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to modify Kubli in view of Starman to include the limitation at issue because by doing so would produce predictable results such as effectively optimized the tool and blank shape within several iterations. See, Starman, abstract. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vei Chung Liang whose telephone number is (571)270-1984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30. 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, Cassandra Spyrou can be reached at 571-272-1624 . 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. /Vei-Chung Liang/ Primary Examiner Application/Control Number: 18/708,859 Page 2 Art Unit: 6210 Application/Control Number: 18/708,859 Page 3 Art Unit: 6210 Application/Control Number: 18/708,859 Page 4 Art Unit: 6210 Application/Control Number: 18/708,859 Page 5 Art Unit: 6210 Application/Control Number: 18/708,859 Page 6 Art Unit: 6210 Application/Control Number: 18/708,859 Page 7 Art Unit: 6210 Application/Control Number: 18/708,859 Page 8 Art Unit: 6210 Application/Control Number: 18/708,859 Page 9 Art Unit: 6210 Application/Control Number: 18/708,859 Page 10 Art Unit: 6210 Application/Control Number: 18/708,859 Page 11 Art Unit: 6210 Application/Control Number: 18/708,859 Page 12 Art Unit: 6210 Application/Control Number: 18/708,859 Page 13 Art Unit: 6210 Application/Control Number: 18/708,859 Page 14 Art Unit: 6210 Application/Control Number: 18/708,859 Page 15 Art Unit: 6210 Application/Control Number: 18/708,859 Page 16 Art Unit: 6210 Application/Control Number: 18/708,859 Page 17 Art Unit: 6210 Application/Control Number: 18/708,859 Page 18 Art Unit: 6210 Application/Control Number: 18/708,859 Page 19 Art Unit: 6210 Application/Control Number: 18/708,859 Page 20 Art Unit: 6210 Application/Control Number: 18/708,859 Page 21 Art Unit: 6210 Application/Control Number: 18/708,859 Page 22 Art Unit: 6210
Prosecution Insights