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 .
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 10-11, 12-13, 14-15, 16-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of copending Application No. 18/997869 (reference application US 2026/0037687). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding to claims 10, 12, 14, 16, 18-19:
Claim 1 of the copending application teaches a press forming analysis method for predicting an effect of shape variation of a blank when press forming is performed using the blank collected from a metal sheet having the shape variation (lines 1-4), the press forming analysis method comprising:
(a) performing press forming analysis where press forming is performed with a
predetermined tool of press forming model using a flat blank model that has a flat shape, and
acquiring a shape of a press-formed part after die release as a shape of a standard press-formed part (lines 6-11: The reference press formed part reads on the claimed standard press-formed part);
(b) generating a waveform blank model having a waveform that has a predetermined
wavelength and a predetermined amplitude corresponding to the shape variation (lines 12-16: The wave-shaped blank model reads on the claimed waveform/first actual blank model);
(c) performing press forming analysis where press forming is performed with the
predetermined tool of press forming model using the waveform blank model, and acquiring a shape of the press-formed part after die release as a shape of a waveform blank press-formed part (lines 16-21: The wave-shaped blank press formed part reads on the claimed waveform/actual blank press-formed part);
(d) comparing the shape of the standard press-formed part and the shape of the
waveform blank press-formed part, and obtaining a portion where both the shapes are deviated from each other and a deviation amount of shape change (lines 22-26: Comparing the reference press formed part shape with the wave-shaped/actual blank press formed part shape to obtain the deviation amount);
(e) generating one or more types of cycle deviation waveform blank models each
having a waveform that has an amplitude identical to and a cycle deviated from the waveform in the waveform blank model (lines 27-35: The periodically deviated wave-shaped blank models read on the claimed cycle deviation/second actual waveform blank models);
(f) performing press forming analysis where press forming is performed with the
predetermined tool of press forming model using the cycle deviation waveform blank model, and acquiring a shape of the press-formed part after die release as a shape of a cycle deviation waveform blank press-formed part (lines 35-40);
(g) comparing the shape of the standard press-formed part with one or more types of the shape of the cycle deviation waveform blank press-formed part, and obtaining a portion where both the shapes are deviated from each other and a deviation amount of shape change (lines 41-46: Comparing the reference press formed part shape with the periodically deviated wave-shaped/actual blank press formed part shape to obtain the deviation amount); and
(h) identifying, as a portion requiring countermeasures, a portion having a deviation
amount of shape change exceeding a threshold among the deviation amounts of shape change obtained in (d) and (g) (lines 47-55).
Regarding to claims 11, 13, 15, 17:
Claim 2 of the copending application teaches wherein
(d) includes acquiring, as the deviation amount of shape change, a difference between: a
springback amount of a predetermined portion in the shape of the standard press-formed part; and a springback amount of the same portion in the shape of the waveform blank press-formed part as the predetermined portion in the shape of the standard press-formed part (lines 3-9), and
(g) includes acquiring, as the deviation amount of shape change, a difference between: the springback amount of the predetermined portion in the shape of the standard press-formed
part; and a springback amount of the same portion in the shape of the cycle deviation waveform blank press-formed part as the predetermined portion in the shape of the standard press-formed part (lines 10-17).
Claims 10-11, 12-13, 14-15, 16-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of copending Application No. 18/994848 (reference application US 2026/0014613). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Similarly to the above rejection, claims 1-2 of the copending application read on all limitations of the claims in the current application, wherein the target press-formed article reads on the claimed standard press-formed part, the corrugated blank press-formed article reads on the claimed waveform/actual press-formed part, the period-shifted corrugated blank press-formed article reads on the claimed cycle deviated waveform/actual press-formed part.
CONTACT INFORMATION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The pertinent prior art is cited in the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2151.
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, DOUGLAS RODRIGUEZ, can be reached on 571-431-0716. 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.
/LAM S NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights