CTNF 18/720,757 CTNF 101330 DETAILED ACTION 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. Claim Interpretation-35 USC § 112(f) 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. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 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) is/are: “actual press formed part peripheral shape acquisition unit”, “press formed part analysis model peripheral shape acquisition unit”, “peripheral shape comparison/evaluation unit”, “actual press formed part contact pressure distribution calculation unit”, “press formed part analysis model contact pressure distribution calculation unit”, and “contact pressure distribution comparison/evaluation unit” in claims 6 and 7. 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 intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 6 and 7 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. 07-34-23 Claims 6 and 7 recite limitations that include “unit configured to” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function . Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. 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. 07-23-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 no obviousness. 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3,6,10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urabe (WO 2020158062 A1) as an English translation of later publication Urabe (EP 3919197 A1.), and in view of Saito (US 20150217356 A1.) . As per claim 1, Urabe teaches A method of evaluating a peripheral shape of a press formed part (para 3 , “ To satisfy the shape accuracy required for press forming of blank materials (blanks, for example, metal sheets), it is significantly important to reduce springback amount generated when a press formed part is taken out of a tool of 20 press forming after press forming. Springback is the behavior of elastic recovery, which is generated when internal residual stress (bottom dead center residual stress) in a press formed part at the time (bottom dead center) of completion of sandwiching by upper and lower tools of press forming is released at the time of die release. To effectively reduce the springback amount, it is important to know which portion of and how bottom dead center residual stress in the press formed part affects the behavior of springback .”) in a process of press forming the actual press formed part (para 3 , … “ press forming of blank materials (blanks, for example, metal sheets) ,” and evaluating each of the peripheral shapes (para 9, “… measuring a surface shape of the first press formed part after die release”) , the method comprising: an actual press formed part peripheral shape acquisition step of generating a press formed part workpiece shape model from three-dimensional surface profile measurement data acquired by measuring a surface profile of the actual press formed part after die release of the actual press formed part and springback thereof (para 68, “…. for press forming a first press formed part under first press forming conditions in advance, creating a first press formed part model from three-dimensional shape 15 measurement data obtained by measuring the surface shape of the first press formed part after die release ”) , performing mechanical analysis in a process of sandwiching the press formed part workpiece shape model up to a forming bottom dead center by a model of the tool of press forming of the tool of press forming ( para 68, “… performing mechanical analysis in the state in which the first press formed part model is sandwiched by a tool-of-press-forming model until reaching a press forming bottom dead center, and acquiring residual stress distribution in the first press formed part at the press forming bottom dead center .”) , acquiring a press formed part workpiece bottom dead center shape model at the forming bottom dead center (Fig. 35, displacement of analysis under press forming condition, also see, Fig. 41, Displacement of a bottom dead center, page 6, “…displacements (a) and (b) calculated by spring back analysis under different press forming conditions in which there was scattering in position of the press forming bottom dead center and difference 15 (c) between the displacements caused by spring back under the different press forming conditions.”) , and However, Urabe does not teach comparing a peripheral shape of an actual press formed part obtained by actually press forming a blank using a tool of press forming with a peripheral shape of a press formed part analysis model obtained by elastoplastic mechanical analysis; acquiring a peripheral shape of the obtained press formed part workpiece bottom dead center shape model as the peripheral shape of the actual press formed part; a press formed part analysis model peripheral shape acquisition step of obtaining the press formed part analysis model at the forming bottom dead center by performing elastoplastic mechanical analysis in a process of press forming a blank model of the blank using the model of the tool of press forming over a single process or a plurality of processes, and acquiring the peripheral shape of the obtained press formed part analysis model; and a peripheral shape comparison/evaluation step of comparing the peripheral shape of the actual press formed part acquired in the actual press formed part peripheral shape acquisition step with the peripheral shape of the press formed part analysis model acquired in the press formed part analysis model peripheral shape acquisition step and evaluating each of the peripheral shapes In the same field of endeavor Saito teaches comparing a peripheral shape of an actual press formed part obtained by actually press forming a blank using a tool of press forming with a peripheral shape of a press formed part analysis model obtained by elastoplastic mechanical analysis (Saito, para 115, Fig. 26. Fig. 26(a), Fig.26(b), “The results obtained after an actual press forming .” The comparison process between Fig. 26(a) and Fig. 26(b). Also see para 19, and para 52 for optimization analysis.) ; acquiring a peripheral shape of the obtained press formed part workpiece bottom dead center shape model as the peripheral shape of the actual press formed part (Saito, para 61, describes a press forming analysis process to set the stressed state form as the bottom dead center state which is before being separated from the die. Also see para 64 for optimization analysis for shape applied through topography optimization analysis and numerical optimization analysis. Also see para 67-68, applying Young’s modulus to get the outline of the rigidity of the contributable portion and using the contribution portion as outline shape. Here outline shape refers to peripheral shape) ; a press formed part analysis model peripheral shape acquisition step of obtaining the press formed part analysis model at the forming bottom dead center by performing elastoplastic mechanical analysis in a process of press forming a blank model of the blank using the model of the tool of press forming over a single process or a plurality of processes, and acquiring the peripheral shape of the obtained press formed part analysis model (Saito, para 5, springback reduction method applied for analysis for press forming by optimizing the press forming condition such as shape of a die of press forming or the shape of a blank. Also see para 19, Analytical Model”. Also see para 79 for performing a press-forming analysis to set boundary condition by mapping the distribution of the stress at the bottom dead center state , the springback reduction method teaches an elastoplastic mechanical analysis and the analytical step refers to acquisition step ); and a peripheral shape comparison/evaluation step of comparing the peripheral shape of the actual press formed part acquired in the actual press formed part peripheral shape acquisition step with the peripheral shape of the press formed part analysis model acquired in the press formed part analysis model peripheral shape acquisition step and evaluating each of the peripheral shapes (Saito, para 115, Fig. 26. Fig. 26(a), Fig.26(b), “The results obtained after an actual press forming .” The comparison process between Fig. 26(a) and Fig. 26(b).) . It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Urabe and to include the comparison method taught by Saito into Urabe’s press form part evaluation step. This would have been obvious because both Urabe and Saito teach press form part analysis. By adding the comparison method, the peripheral shape obtaining will be much easier and effective springback reduction can be expected (paras. 12-14, Saito). As per claim 2, the combination of Urabe and Saito teach The method of evaluating a peripheral shape of a press formed part according to claim 1, wherein the mechanical analysis in the actual press formed part peripheral shape acquisition step is an elastic finite element analysis or an elasto-plastic finite element analysis (Urabe, para 69,Fig. 33, Step S21 performing- “performing elastic finite element analysis as mechanical analysis in the state in which the first press formed part model 25 is sandwiched by a tool-of-press-forming model 41 formed from 25 a die 43 and a punch 45 until reaching the press forming bottom dead center, and acquiring residual stress distribution in the first press formed part model 25 at the press forming bottom dead center obtained by the elastic finite element .” Also see para 70 & para 72) , and the elastoplastic mechanical analysis in the press formed part analysis model peripheral shape acquisition step is the elasto-plastic finite element analysis (Urabe, para 69, para 70 and para 72 ). As per claim 3, the combination of Urabe and Saito teach The method of evaluating a peripheral shape of a press formed part according to claim 1, wherein, when the process of press forming the actual press formed part is divided for respective portions of the actual press formed part, the model of the tool of press forming in the actual press formed part peripheral shape acquisition step is formed as one model of the tool of press forming obtained by combining the models of the tools of press forming of respective tools of press forming adopted to press-form the respective portions of the actual press formed part ( Urabe, para 9,” first residual stress distribution acquisition step for press forming a first press formed part under first press forming conditions in advance, creating a first press formed part model from three-dimensional shape measurement data obtained by measuring a surface shape of the first press formed part after die release, performing mechanical analysis in a state in which the first press formed part model is sandwiched by a tool-of-press-forming model until reaching a press forming bottom dead center, and acquiring residual stress distribution in the first press formed part at the press forming bottom dead center under the first press forming conditions .” “a second residual stress distribution acquisition step for press forming a second press formed part under second press forming conditions different from the first press forming conditions within a range of the scattering in press forming conditions in advance, creating a second press formed part model from three-dimensional shape measurement data obtained by measuring a surface shape of the second press formed part after die release, performing mechanical analysis.”) . As per claim 6, the combination of Urabe and Saito teach A device (device, para 9, para 10) for evaluating a peripheral shape of a press formed part in a process of press forming the actual press formed part (para 3 , … “ press forming of blank materials (blanks, for example, metal sheets)” and evaluating each of the peripheral shapes, the device comprising (para 9, “… measuring a surface shape of the first press formed part after die release”) : an actual press formed part peripheral shape acquisition unit configured to generate a press formed part workpiece shape model from three-dimensional surface profile measurement data acquired by measuring a surface profile of the actual press formed part after die release of the actual press formed part and springback thereof (para 68, “…. for press forming a first press formed part under first press forming conditions in advance, creating a first press formed part model from three-dimensional shape 15 measurement data obtained by measuring the surface shape of the first press formed part after die release ” ) , to perform mechanical analysis in a process of sandwiching the press formed part workpiece shape model up to a forming bottom dead center by a model of the tool of press forming of the tool of press forming ( para 68, “ … performing mechanical analysis in the state in which the first press formed part model is sandwiched by a tool-of-press-forming model until reaching a press forming bottom dead center, and acquiring residual stress distribution in the first press formed part at the press forming bottom dead center .”) , to acquire a press formed part workpiece bottom dead center shape model at the forming bottom dead center (Fig. 35, displacement of analysis under press forming condition, also see, Fig. 41, Displacement of a bottom dead center, page 6, “…displacements (a) and (b) calculated by spring back analysis under different press forming conditions in which there was scattering in position of the press forming bottom dead center and difference 15 (c) between the displacements caused by spring back under the different press forming conditions.”) . However, Urabe does not teach comparing a peripheral shape of an actual press formed part obtained by actually press forming a blank using a tool of press forming with a peripheral shape of a press formed part analysis model obtained by elastoplastic mechanical analysis; acquire a peripheral shape of the obtained press formed part workpiece bottom dead center shape model as the peripheral shape of the actual press formed part; a press formed part analysis model peripheral shape acquisition unit configured to acquire the press formed part analysis model at the forming bottom dead center by performing elastoplastic mechanical analysis in a process of press forming a blank model of the blank using the model of the tool of press forming over a single process or a plurality of processes, and to acquire the peripheral shape of the obtained press formed part analysis model; and a peripheral shape comparison/evaluation unit configured to compare the peripheral shape of the actual press formed part acquired by the actual press formed part peripheral shape acquisition unit with the peripheral shape of the press formed part analysis model acquired by the press formed part analysis model peripheral shape acquisition unit and evaluate each of the peripheral shapes . In the same field of endeavor, Saito teaches comparing a peripheral shape of an actual press formed part obtained by actually press forming a blank using a tool of press forming with a peripheral shape of a press formed part analysis model obtained by elastoplastic mechanical analysis (Saito, para 115, Fig. 26. Fig. 26(a), Fig.26(b), “The results obtained after an actual press forming .” The comparison process between Fig. 26(a) and Fig. 26(b). Also see para 19, and para 52 for optimization analysis.) . acquire a peripheral shape of the obtained press formed part workpiece bottom dead center shape model as the peripheral shape of the actual press formed part (Saito, para 61, describes a press forming analysis process to set the stressed state form as the bottom dead center state which is before being separated from the die. Also see para 64 for optimization analysis for shape applied through topography optimization analysis and numerical optimization analysis. Also see para 67-68, applying Young’s modulus to get the outline of the rigidity of the contributable portion and using the contribution portion as outline shape. Here outline shape refers to peripheral shape) ; a press formed part analysis model peripheral shape acquisition unit configured to acquire the press formed part analysis model at the forming bottom dead center by performing elastoplastic mechanical analysis in a process of press forming a blank model of the blank using the model of the tool of press forming over a single process or a plurality of processes, and to acquire the peripheral shape of the obtained press formed part analysis model (Saito ,para 5, springback reduction method applied for analysis for press forming by optimizing the press forming condition such as shape of a die of press forming or the shape of a blank. Also see para 19, Analytical Model”. Also see para 79 for performing a press-forming analysis to set boundary condition by mapping the distribution of the stress at the bottom dead center state , the springback reduction method teaches an elastoplastic mechanical analysis and the analytical step refers to acquisition step ); and a peripheral shape comparison/evaluation unit configured to compare the peripheral shape of the actual press formed part acquired by the actual press formed part peripheral shape acquisition unit with the peripheral shape of the press formed part analysis model acquired by the press formed part analysis model peripheral shape acquisition unit and evaluate each of the peripheral shapes (Saito, para 115, Fig. 26. Fig. 26(a), Fig.26(b), “The results obtained after an actual press forming .” The comparison process between Fig. 26(a) and Fig. 26(b).) . It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Urabe and to include the comparison method taught by Saito into Urabe’s press form part evaluation step. This would have been obvious because both Urabe and Saito teach press form part analysis. By adding the comparison method, the peripheral shape obtaining will be much easier and effective springback reduction can be expected (paras. 12-14, Saito). . As per claim 10, the combination of Urabe and Saito teach A method of manufacturing a press formed part, the method being performed to manufacture an actual press formed part by adjusting a press forming condition so as to improve dimensional accuracy of a peripheral shape and comprising (Urabe, para 1, para 8, method for shape accuracy, also see para 2 & 3) : a peripheral shape prediction accuracy acquisition step of obtaining, as prediction accuracy of a peripheral shape at a forming bottom dead center of a press formed part analysis model (Urabe, para 3 , “ To satisfy the shape accuracy required for press forming of blank materials (blanks, for example, metal sheets), it is significantly important to reduce springback amount generated when a press formed part is taken out of a tool of 20 press forming after press forming. Springback is the behavior of elastic recovery, which is generated when internal residual stress (bottom dead center residual stress) in a press formed part at the time (bottom dead center) of completion of sandwiching by upper and lower tools of press forming is released at the time of die release. To effectively reduce the springback amount, it is important to know which portion of and how bottom dead center residual stress in the press formed part affects the behavior of springback .”) , a difference between the peripheral shape at the forming bottom dead center of the press formed part analysis model obtained by elastoplastic mechanical analysis in a process of press forming the actual press formed part and a peripheral shape at a forming bottom dead center of the actual press formed part obtained by actually press forming a blank using a tool of press forming based on the method of evaluating the peripheral shape of the press formed part, according to claim 1 (Urabe, Fig. 41 is a diagram illustrating displacements (a) and (b) calculated by springback analysis under different press forming conditions in which there was scattering in position of the press forming bottom dead center and difference (c) between the displacements caused by springback under the different press forming conditions, Also see paragraph 119.) ; an analysis condition adjustment step of adjusting, based on the prediction accuracy of the peripheral shape of the press formed part analysis model, an analysis condition of the press formed part analysis model in the elastoplastic mechanical analysis in the process of press forming the actual press formed part (Urabe, para 9. … , “creating a first press formed part model from three-dimensional shape measurement data obtained by measuring a surface shape of the first press formed part after die release, performing mechanical analysis in a state in which the first press formed part model is sandwiched by a tool-of-press-forming model until reaching a press forming bottom dead center, and acquiring residual stress distribution in the first press formed part at the press forming bottom dead center under the first press forming conditions;”) ; a press forming condition adjustment step of adjusting a press forming condition in the elastoplastic mechanical analysis in the process of press forming the actual press formed part so as to allow a deviation between the peripheral shape at the forming bottom dead center of the press formed part analysis model obtained under the adjusted analysis condition and a target of the peripheral shape at the forming bottom dead center of the actual press formed part to fall within a predetermined range (Saito, para 5, springback reduction method applied for analysis for press forming by optimizing the press forming condition such as shape of a die of press forming or the shape of a blank. Also see para 19, Analytical Model”. Also see para 79 for performing a press-forming analysis to set boundary condition by mapping the distribution of the stress at the bottom dead center state , the springback reduction method teaches an elastoplastic mechanical analysis and the analytical step refers to acquisition step ); and a press forming step of actually press forming the blank using the tool of press forming under the press forming condition adjusted in the press forming condition adjustment step and manufacturing the actual press formed part (Saito, Fig 26, para 114-115) . As per claim 11, Urabe teaches A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium on which an executable program for evaluating (para 25, a computer performing analysis) . Please see analysis of claim 1 above for further clarification . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4,5,7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urabe (WO 2020158062 A1) as an English translation of later publication Urabe (EP 3919197 A1.), and in view of Saito (US 20150217356 A1.), and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 20170140081 A1) . As per Claim 4, Urabe teaches The method of evaluating a peripheral shape of a press formed part according to claim 1, further comprising: an actual press formed part contact pressure distribution calculation step of calculating (Fig. 1, para 22, first residual stress distribution calculation step S1, and second residual stress distribution calculation step S5) , as a contact pressure distribution from the tool of press forming acting on the actual press formed part, a contact pressure distribution with the model of the tool of press forming acting on the press formed part workpiece bottom dead center shape model obtained in the actual press formed part peripheral shape acquisition step (para 23,” The first residual stress distribution calculation step S1 is a step for performing press forming analysis under first press forming conditions set in advance and calculating a residual stress distribution in the press formed part 1 at the press forming bottom dead center.”) ; a press formed part analysis model contact pressure distribution calculation step of calculating a contact pressure distribution with the model of the tool of press forming acting on the press formed part analysis model at the forming bottom dead center, the press formed part analysis model being obtained in the press formed part analysis model peripheral shape acquisition step (para 9, press -form part analysis) ; and However, the combination of Urabe and Saito do not teach a contact pressure distribution comparison/evaluation step of comparing the contact pressure distribution acting on the actual press formed part, the contact pressure distribution being calculated in the actual press formed part contact pressure distribution calculation step, with the contact pressure distribution acting on the press formed part analysis model, the contact pressure distribution being calculated in the press formed part analysis model contact pressure distribution calculation step, and evaluating each of the contact pressure. In the same field of endeavor, Suzuki et al. teach a contact pressure distribution comparison/evaluation step of comparing the contact pressure distribution acting on the actual press formed part, the contact pressure distribution being calculated in the actual press formed part contact pressure distribution calculation step, with the contact pressure distribution acting on the press formed part analysis model, the contact pressure distribution being calculated in the press formed part analysis model contact pressure distribution calculation step, and evaluating each of the contact pressure distributions (Suzuki et al., pressure distribution calculation , para 114, Fig. 17 (a-e), also see para 88) . It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Urabe and Saito and to include the pressure distribution method taught by Suzuki et al. into Urabe’s press form part evaluation step. This would have been obvious because the combination of Urabe, Saito, and Suzuki et al. teach press form part analysis. By adding the finite element method taught by Suzuki et al., the entire element does not need to be targeted only the portion that contacts the metal body needs to be targeted. Therefore, the overall metal forming will be much easier (Suzuki et al., para 11). As per Claim 5, the combination of Urabe and Saito teach The method of evaluating a peripheral shape of a press formed part according to claim 3, further comprising: an actual press formed part contact pressure distribution calculation step of calculating, as a contact pressure distribution from the tool of press forming acting on the actual press formed part, a contact pressure distribution with the model of the tool of press forming acting on the press formed part workpiece bottom dead center shape model obtained in the actual press formed part peripheral shape acquisition step ( Urabe, para 68, “… performing mechanical analysis in the state in which the first press formed part model is sandwiched by a tool-of-press-forming model until reaching a press forming bottom dead center, and acquiring residual stress distribution in the first press formed part at the press forming bottom dead center) ; a press formed part analysis model contact pressure distribution calculation step of calculating a contact pressure distribution with the model of the tool of press forming acting on the press formed part analysis model at the forming bottom dead center, the press formed part analysis model being obtained in the press formed part analysis model peripheral shape acquisition step (Saito, para 5, springback reduction method applied for analysis for press forming by optimizing the press forming condition such as shape of a die of press forming or the shape of a blank. Also see para 19, Analytical Model”. Also see para 79 for performing a press-forming analysis to set boundary condition by mapping the distribution of the stress at the bottom dead center state , the springback reduction method teaches an elastoplastic mechanical analysis and the analytical step refers to acquisition step ); and a contact pressure distribution comparison/evaluation step of comparing the contact pressure distribution acting on the actual press formed part, the contact pressure distribution being calculated in the actual press formed part contact pressure distribution calculation step, with the contact pressure distribution acting on the press formed part analysis model, the contact pressure distribution being calculated in the press formed part analysis model contact pressure distribution calculation step, and evaluating each of the contact pressure distributions (Urabe, para 9, press -form part analysis) (Saito, para 115, Fig. 26. Fig. 26(a), Fig.26(b), “The results obtained after an actual press forming .” The comparison process between Fig. 26(a) and Fig. 26(b).) . However, the combination of Urabe and Saito do not clearly teach pressure distribution method. In the same field of endeavor, Suzuki et al. teach p ressure distribution method (Suzuki et al., pressure distribution calculation, para 114, Fig. 17 (a-e), also see para 88) . It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Urabe and Saito and to include the pressure distribution method taught by Suzuki et al. into Urabe’s press form part evaluation step. This would have been obvious because the combination of Urabe, Saito, and Suzuki et al. teach press form part analysis. By adding the finite element method taught by Suzuki et al., the entire element does not need to be targeted only the portion that contacts the metal body needs to be targeted. Therefore, the overall metal forming will be much easier (Suzuki et al., para 11). As per Claim 7, Urabe teaches The device for evaluating a peripheral shape of a press formed part according to claim 6, further comprising (Urabe, device, para 9, para 10) : an actual press formed part contact pressure distribution calculation unit configured to calculate (Urabe, Fig. 1, para 22, first residual stress distribution calculation step S1, and second residual stress distribution calculation step S5) , as a contact pressure distribution from the tool of press forming acting on the actual press formed part, a contact pressure distribution with the model of the tool of press forming acting on the press formed part workpiece bottom dead center shape model acquired in the actual press formed part peripheral shape acquisition unit (Urabe, para 23,” The first residual stress distribution calculation step S1 is a step for performing press forming analysis under first press forming conditions set in advance and calculating a residual stress distribution in the press formed part 1 at the press forming bottom dead center.”) ; a press formed part analysis model contact pressure distribution calculation unit configured to calculate a contact pressure distribution with the model of the tool of press forming acting on the press formed part analysis model at the forming bottom dead center, the press formed part analysis model being obtained in the press formed part analysis model peripheral shape acquisition unit (Urabe, para 9, press -form part analysis) ; and However, the combination of Urabe and Saito do not teach a contact pressure distribution comparison/evaluation unit configured to compare the contact pressure distribution acting on the actual press formed part, the contact pressure distribution being calculated by the actual press formed part contact pressure distribution calculation unit, with the contact pressure distribution acting on the press formed part analysis model, the contact pressure distribution being calculated by the press formed part analysis model contact pressure distribution calculation unit, and evaluate each of the contact pressure distributions. In the same field of endeavor, Suzuki et al. teach a contact pressure distribution comparison/evaluation unit configured to compare the contact pressure distribution acting on the actual press formed part, the contact pressure distribution being calculated by the actual press formed part contact pressure distribution calculation unit, with the contact pressure distribution acting on the press formed part analysis model, the contact pressure distribution being calculated by the press formed part analysis model contact pressure distribution calculation unit, and evaluate each of the contact pressure distributions (Suzuki et al., pressure distribution calculation , para 114, Fig. 17 (a-e), also see para 88) . It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Urabe and Saito and to include the pressure distribution method taught by Suzuki et al. into Urabe’s press form part evaluation step. This would have been obvious because the combination of Urabe, Saito, and Suzuki et al. teach press form part analysis. By adding the contact pressure distribution calculation method taught by Suzuki et al., the forming simulation can be done accurately (Suzuki et al., para 88, para 114). As per claim 12, the combination of Urabe and Saito teach The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 11, wherein the program causes the processor of the computer to execute: an actual press formed part contact pressure distribution calculation step of calculating ( Urabe, Fig. 1, para 22, first residual stress distribution calculation step S1, and second residual stress distribution calculation step S5) , as a contact pressure distribution from the tool of press forming acting on the actual press formed part, a contact pressure distribution with the model of the tool of press forming acting on the press formed part workpiece bottom dead center shape model obtained in the actual press formed part peripheral shape acquisition step (Urabe, para 23,” The first residual stress distribution calculation step S1 is a step for performing press forming analysis under first press forming conditions set in advance and calculating a residual stress distribution in the press formed part 1 at the press forming bottom dead center.”) ; a press formed part analysis model contact pressure distribution calculation step of calculating a contact pressure distribution with the model of the tool of press forming acting on the press formed part analysis model at the forming bottom dead center, the press formed part analysis model being obtained by the press formed part analysis model peripheral shape acquisition step (Urabe, para 9, press -form part analysis) ; and However, the combination of Urabe and Saito do not teach a contact pressure distribution comparison/evaluation step of comparing the contact pressure distribution acting on the actual press formed part, the contact pressure distribution being calculated in the actual press formed part contact pressure distribution calculation step, with the contact pressure distribution acting on the press formed part analysis model, the contact pressure distribution being calculated in the press formed part analysis model contact pressure distribution calculation step, and evaluating each of the contact pressure distributions. In the same field of endeavor, Suzuki et al. teach a contact pressure distribution comparison/evaluation step of comparing the contact pressure distribution acting on the actual press formed part, the contact pressure distribution being calculated in the actual press formed part contact pressure distribution calculation step, with the contact pressure distribution acting on the press formed part analysis model, the contact pressure distribution being calculated in the press formed part analysis model contact pressure distribution calculation step, and evaluating each of the contact pressure distributions ( Suzuki et al. , para 3 pressure distribution calculation , para 114, Fig. 17 (a-e), also see para 88. Also see para 11) . It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Urabe and Saito and to include the pressure distribution method taught by Suzuki et al. into Urabe’s press form part evaluation step. This would have been obvious because the combination of Urabe, Saito, and Suzuki et al. teach press form part analysis. By adding the finite element method taught by Suzuki et al., the entire element does not need to be targeted only the portion that contacts the metal body needs to be targeted. Therefore, the overall metal forming will be much easier (Suzuki et al., para 11). Conclusion 07-96 The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rokeya Alam whose telephone number is (571)-272-0083. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am - 4:30pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. Scott Baderman can be reached at telephone number (571-272-3644). 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form. /ROKEYA SHAWALI ALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2118 /SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/720,757 Page 2 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/720,757 Page 3 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/720,757 Page 4 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/720,757 Page 5 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/720,757 Page 6 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/720,757 Page 7 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/720,757 Page 8 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/720,757 Page 9 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/720,757 Page 10 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/720,757 Page 11 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/720,757 Page 12 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/720,757 Page 13 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/720,757 Page 14 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/720,757 Page 15 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/720,757 Page 16 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/720,757 Page 17 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/720,757 Page 18 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/720,757 Page 19 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/720,757 Page 20 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/720,757 Page 21 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/720,757 Page 22 Art Unit: 2118
Prosecution Insights