DETAILED ACTION
Contents
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 2
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 2
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 3
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 5
Allowable Subject Matter 12
Conclusion 13
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 .
This action is responsive to applicant’s claim set received on 5/23/24. Claims 1-8, 10 are currently pending.
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, 3-5, 7-8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. Claims 1, 5, 10 recite mathematical comparison, data processing and deviation calculation which is an abstract idea because it can be a mental process. The limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor does it add significantly more. For claims 3-4, 7-8, the claims are still a mathematical concept which do not integrate the limitations into a practical application with no inventive concepts. Thus, all of the mentioned claims are considered non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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 - (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.(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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schneider et al (IDDRG: “VALIDATION AND OPTIMIZATION OF NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS BY OPTICAL MEASUREMENTS OF TOOLS AND PARTS”). Regarding claim 1, Schneider discloses 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 (see 3.3), 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 (see 3.2-3.3);
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 (se section 3, 3.2, 4.4, 4.6); 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 (see section 4.4).
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 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 claimedinvention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 5, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al (IDDRG: “VALIDATION AND OPTIMIZATION OF NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS BY OPTICAL MEASUREMENTS OF TOOLS AND PARTS”) in view of Konig et al (US 2021/0406424 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Schneider teaches 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 (see 3.3), 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 (see 3.2-3.3);
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 (se section 3, 3.2, 4.4, 4.6); 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 (see section 4.4). Schneider does not teach expressly a press forming analysis apparatus and various units.
Konig, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a press forming analysis apparatus and various units (see 0036).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Schneider to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Konig. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enhance the efficiency of the system (see 0014). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Schneider, while the teaching of Konig continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 10, Schneider teaches 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 (see 3.3), 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 (see 3.2-3.3);
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 (se section 3, 3.2, 4.4, 4.6); 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 (see section 4.4). Schneider does not teach expressly a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium on which an executable program 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, the program causing a processor of a computer to execute.
Konig, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium on which an executable program 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, the program causing a processor of a computer to execute (see 0036).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Schneider to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Konig. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enhance the efficiency of the system (see 0014). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Schneider, while the teaching of Konig continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al (IDDRG: “VALIDATION AND OPTIMIZATION OF NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS BY OPTICAL MEASUREMENTS OF TOOLS AND PARTS”) in view of Shen et al (AIP: “Springback Simulation and Tool Surface Compensation Algorithm for Sheet Metal Forming”).
Regarding claim 3, Schneider teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Schneider does not teach expressly a forming surface shape of the tool-of-press-forming model is determined as a standard, and a difference between a difference from the first shape corresponding to a predetermined position of the forming surface shape and a difference from the second shape corresponding to the predetermined position of the forming surface shape is acquired as the deviation amount.
Shen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a forming surface shape of the tool-of-press-forming model is determined as a standard, and a difference between a difference from the first shape corresponding to a predetermined position of the forming surface shape and a difference from the second shape corresponding to the predetermined position of the forming surface shape is acquired as the deviation amount (see abstract, 3.2, 4.2).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Schneider to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Shen. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable accurate die and part shapes with no trial and error and with few iterations (see pg. 335). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Schneider, while the teaching of Shen continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al (IDDRG: “VALIDATION AND OPTIMIZATION OF NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS BY OPTICAL MEASUREMENTS OF TOOLS AND PARTS”) in view of Starman et al (MDPI: “A Method for Simultaneous Optimization of Blank Shape and Forming Tool Geometry in Sheet Metal Forming Simulations”).
Regarding claim 4, Schneider teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Schneider does not teach expressly identifying a portion where the deviation amount exceeds a preset threshold as a portion requiring a countermeasure.
Starman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches identifying a portion where the deviation amount exceeds a preset threshold as a portion requiring a countermeasure (see section 4, abstract, 4.1).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Schneider to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Starman. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to optimize the tool for simulation (see abstract). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Schneider, while the teaching of Starman continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al (IDDRG: “VALIDATION AND OPTIMIZATION OF NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS BY OPTICAL MEASUREMENTS OF TOOLS AND PARTS”) with Konig et al (US 2021/0406424 A1), and further in view of Shen et al (AIP: “Springback Simulation and Tool Surface Compensation Algorithm for Sheet Metal Forming”).
Regarding claim 7, Schneider with Konig teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Schneider with Konig does not teach expressly determine a forming surface shape of the tool-of-press-forming model as a standard, and acquire, as the deviation amount, a difference between a difference from the first shape corresponding to a predetermined position of the forming surface shape and a difference from the second shape corresponding to the predetermined position of the forming surface shape.
Shen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determine a forming surface shape of the tool-of-press-forming model as a standard, and acquire, as the deviation amount, a difference between a difference from the first shape corresponding to a predetermined position of the forming surface shape and a difference from the second shape corresponding to the predetermined position of the forming surface shape (see abstract, 3.2, 4.2).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Schneider with Konig to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Shen. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable accurate die and part shapes with no trial and error and with few iterations (see pg. 335). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Schneider with Konig, while the teaching of Shen continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al (IDDRG: “VALIDATION AND OPTIMIZATION OF NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS BY OPTICAL MEASUREMENTS OF TOOLS AND PARTS”) with Konig et al (US 2021/0406424 A1), and further in view of Starman et al (MDPI: “A Method for Simultaneous Optimization of Blank Shape and Forming Tool Geometry in Sheet Metal Forming Simulations”).
Regarding claim 8, Schneider with Konig teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Schneider with Konig does not teach expressly identify a portion where the deviation amount exceeds a preset threshold as a portion requiring a countermeasure.
Starman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches identify a portion where the deviation amount exceeds a preset threshold as a portion requiring a countermeasure (see section 4, abstract, 4.1).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Schneider with Konig to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Starman. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to optimize the tool for simulation (see abstract). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Schneider, while the teaching of Schneider with Konig continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6 are 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.
Regarding claims 2, 6, none of the references of record alone or in combination suggest or fairly teach wherein, in the deviation amount acquisition step, a bottom dead center shape in press forming analysis using the flat blank model is determined as a standard, and a difference between a difference from the first shape corresponding to a predetermined position of the bottom dead center shape and a difference from the second shape corresponding to the predetermined position of the bottom dead center shape is acquired as the deviation amount.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10 are rejected. Claims 2, 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD PARK. The examiner’s contact information is as follows:
Telephone: (571)270-1576 | Fax: 571.270.2576 | Edward.Park@uspto.gov
For email communications, please notate MPEP 502.03, which outlines procedures pertaining to communications via the internet and authorization. A sample authorization form is cited within MPEP 502.03, section II.
The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6 CST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Moyer, can be reached on (571) 272-9523. 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.
/EDWARD PARK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666