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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is responsive to communication filed on 10/21/2024.
Claims 1-10 are pending and presented for examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 2-5 are of poor quality and fail to show the claimed subject matter with sufficient clarity. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal phraseology (“The present invention provides …”) and the abstract is over 200 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
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.
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: “a path acquisition unit”, “an incremental forming unit” and “a reinforcement learning unit” in claim 8.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected as a formality because the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph language in these claims does not have sufficient structure in the specification. The rejection matches the below indefiniteness rejection for the same language. Once that rejection is overcome, this one will be as well.
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.
Claim 8 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.
Claim limitation 8, the limitations “a path acquisition unit”, “an incremental forming unit”, and “a reinforcement learning unit” invokes 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. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the functions in the claim. 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.
Claims 1-10 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 8
Claim 1 is rejected as failing to define the invention in a manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claim 1 recites several terms and phrases which render the metes and bounds of the claim unclear and ambiguous, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.1 Specifically, the claim is indefinite for at least the following reasons:
the claim recites “the current main working path” and “the next main working path,” however these lack terms lack antecedent basis;
the claim recites “according to formation direction” however formation direction lacks antecedent basis;
the claim recites “the selected current supporting path” in the second limitation of the claim, however this terminology is inconsistent with the “current supporting path” established in the first limitation of the claim;
the claim recites “cyclically controlling robot arms of a master robot and a slave robot for incremental forming in an actual application environment respectively,” however it is unclear what “respectively” corresponds to;
the claim recites “in an actual application environment” which is a vague and/or relative term with no clear boundary;
the claim recites to take “a deviation value of the formed curved surface from a target curved surface as a state vector”, however the deviation value is not used in the claim and “a target curved surface” lacks any relationship tying it back to the acquired three-dimensional model or layering step;
the claim recites “applying a pre-trained deep reinforcement learning model for reinforcement learning of a supporting strategy”, however the claim does not clearly recite reinforcement learning as an active method step with defined inputs and/or outputs;
in view of the preamble’s recitation that the claimed method is a “manufacturing method based on deep reinforcement learning” it is unclear as to how the “supporting strategy” introduced in the final limitation integrates in to the claim as it is not subsequently used and there is no relationship between deep reinforcement learning, the supporting strategy, and/or the updating of any main or supporting paths;
the claim recites “till incremental forming of the three-dimensional model is completed”, however the three-dimensional model is defined in the claim as an acquired and layered digital representation of a formed surface and not the physical workpiece undergoing incremental forming and thus it is unclear what physical structure is actually being formed.
The claim has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the above reasons. Please note that the examiner may not have pointed out each and every example of indefiniteness. The Applicant is required to review the claim language to make sure the claimed invention is clear and definite.2
All words in a claim must be considered in determining the patentability of the claim against the prior art. If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certain terms in the claim, the subject matter does not become obvious, the claim becomes indefinite. In re Wilson, 424F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). The examiner's analysis of the claims, in particular claim language within the claims as rejected under 35 USC 112 above, indicates that considerable speculation as to the meaning of the terms employed and assumptions as to the scope of the claims needs to be made, as the examiner does not understand what is exactly being claimed by the Applicant. Nevertheless, based on a person having ordinary skill in the art and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner has construed the claims as best understood and an obviousness rejection over the prior art follows below. Refer to the following prior art rejections for the examiner’s interpretation of the claim.
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Claim 8 recites substantially the same subject material to include the indefiniteness and clarity issues outlined above regarding claim 1, and is rejected as per such.
Regarding claim 2
Claim 2 recites term and phrases which render the metes and bounds of the claim unclear and ambiguous, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, the claim is indefinite for at least the following reasons:
claim 2 recites the “method of claim 1, characterized in that, the step of acquiring a three-dimensional model to be manufactured, […]” and then in the first limitation following the preamble recites “acquiring a three-dimensional model to be manufactured”, however this is unclear; does the claim require the acquisition of another three-dimensional model to be manufactured, or is it the same model acquired in claim 1;
claim 2 recites “in the forming direction” which lacks antecedent basis;
claim 2 recites “dividing a second present number of discrete points at a preset point interval for each curve path”, however the claim lacks what the second present number of discrete points is divided by;
claim 2 recites “a main working path” and “a plurality of candidate supporting paths”, however this is unclear as claim 1 already introduces “a main working path” and “a plurality of candidate supporting paths”;
claim 2 recites “acquiring a plurality of candidate supporting paths […] according to a plurality of supporting strategies […] wherein the supporting strategy is one of […]” however, this is unclear; claim 1 already introduced a supporting strategy, and the recitation of “according to a plurality of supporting strategies […] wherein the supporting strategy is one of” is unclear as “according to a plurality of supporting strategies” requires more than one strategy, but “wherein the supporting strategy is one of” implies selecting a single strategy.
Regarding claim 3
Claim 3 is indefinite for at least the following reasons:
the preamble of claim 3 recites the “method of claim 1, characterized in that, before the step of controlling the robot arms for incremental forming in a real environment”, however this is inconsistent with claim 1, as claim 1 controls the robot arms for incremental forming in an actual environment;
claim 3 recites “constructing a digital simulation environment […] in Grasshopper”, however MPEP 2713.05(u) states “If the trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982).”
Regarding claim 4
Claim 4 is indefinite for at least the following reasons:
claim 4 introduces “a deviation value” and “a state vector”, however these elements were already introduced in claim 1; examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “taking a simulation deviation value […] as a simulated state vector” to remove confusion;
claim 4 recites “adjusting the model parameters” however “the model parameters” lacks antecedent basis;
claim 4 recites “the return value” however this lacks antecedent basis or is inconsistent with the introduced “a current return value”
claim 4 recites “the next simulated main working path” however this lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 5
Claim 5 is indefinite for at least the following reasons:
claim 5 recites “converting coordinates and directions of discrete points”, however discrete points were introduced in claim 2 and claim 5 does not dependent, either directly or indirectly, on claim 2, and thus lacks antecedent basis;
claim 5 recites to determine “robot motion instructions according to robot syntax rules” however this is “robot syntax rules” is vague and unclear with no limiting definition associated in the specification.
Regarding claim 6
Claim 6 is indefinite for at least the following reasons:
claim 6 recites “acquiring second reference points on the simulated formed curved surface corresponding to first reference points”, however, this is unclear as the claim implies that antecedent basis has been established for acquired first reference points, however claim 6 (or the claims of which claim 6 depends from) lack any such recitation.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a computer storage medium; “the BRI of machine readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When the BRI encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate. Thus, a claim to a computer readable medium that can be a compact disc or a carrier wave covers a non-statutory embodiment and therefore should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See, e.g., Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d at 1294-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1134 (claims to a "machine-readable medium" were non-statutory, because their scope encompassed both statutory random-access memory and non-statutory carrier waves).” MPEP 2106.03 (II).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over NDIP-AGBOR (US20170227947A1, hereinafter – “NDIP”) in view of Lu, H., et al., (“Review on strategies for geometric accuracy improvement in incremental sheet forming”, published 2/15/2019, retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00170-019-03348-3, retrieved on 8/12/2026, hereinafter – “LU”) in view of MEHR (US20220212341A1) (the combination is hereinafter – “NDIP-LU-MEHR”).
Regarding claim 1
NDIP teaches a method a computer-implemented method of double-point incremental forming manufacturing, the method comprising:
acquiring a three-dimensional model to be manufactured, layering the three-dimensional model to obtain [0010]: “method is provided for automatically generating a toolpath for double-sided incremental forming of a workpiece into an object having a geometry. The method comprises first recognizing features of the geometry by i) intersecting a model of the geometry to generate a series of closed intersection curves in each of a plurality of slices”, see [0046]-[0052] for “Building Relationship Maps Between Intersection Curves During Z-height slicing” including “Recognition of the features of the features in the freeform geometry is accomplished by successively slicing the shape with series of planes parallel to the X-Y axis to obtain intersections”, see [0053]-[0055] for “Grouping Intersection Curves on Consecutive Slices into Features” including “Given the local maps for each slice and the projection maps between all the adjacent slices, the feature relationship map can be constructed to group together all the intersection curves that belong to a feature”, see [0056]-[0064] for “Building the Final Feature Structure and Generating a Toolpath” including “A toolpath for such a forming strategy can be generated”; [0005] “The method described herein uses geometrically constructed maps to create a hierarchical structure in the form of a rooted tree to group features, which makes it possible to form features on either side of the sheet. This method sorts all the features and automatically provides a synchronized path for the supporting tool to follow the forming tool to form all the features on the part in the correct order and direction”);
cyclically controlling robot arms of a master boto and a slave robot for incremental forming in an actual application environment respectively, according to the current main working path and the [0005]: “method sorts all the features and automatically provides a synchronized path for the supporting tool to follow the forming tool to form all the features on the part in the correct order and direction. The method permits fine control of the individual features and their process parameters, arbitrary changes to the forming order and direction of the features within the feasibility of a forming operation, and translation of each individual feature to the plane to enhance the geometric accuracy of the process” [0038] “control unit 116 includes one or more processing units that may be preprogrammed to control the movements of the tools relative to the sheet along a prescribed toolpath created in accordance with the methods described”); and
[0005]: “This method sorts all the features and automatically provides a synchronized path for the supporting tool to follow the forming tool to form all the features on the part in the correct order and direction. The method permits fine control of the individual features and their process parameters, arbitrary changes to the forming order and direction of the features within the feasibility of a forming operation, and translation of each individual feature to the plane to enhance the geometric accuracy of the process”).
In summary, NDIP teaches a double-point incremental forming manufacturing method that receives a three-dimensional model of an object to be formed, analyzes the three-dimensional model such that main and supporting working paths are generated, wherein the supporting working path is a path synchronized to the main working path, and implements control actions cyclically such that control over individual features and their parameters is permitted to improve the geometric accuracy of the process.
NDIP is not relied on for taking a deviation value of the formed curve surface from a target curved surface as a state vector.
However, LU in analogous art teaches “toolpath optimisation/correction is an important aspect of ISF to improve geometric accuracy” (Pg. 18, 4.3 Toolpath optimization/correction) and that “ISF with shape feedback control strategies can properly adjust the toolpath during the forming process to achieve improved accuracy” (Pg. 22, 4.4 Feedback control is ISF).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of LU to the teachings of NDIP such that NDIP’s control unit would be configured to receive a state vector corresponding to a deviation value representing shape feedback such that the toolpath would be optimized to correct a shape deviation, as NDIP’s control unit is already configured to permit “fine control of the individual features and their process parameters” ([0005]). LU teaches that low geometric accuracy is a major limitation of ISF processes and provides the motivation to combine (Pg. 7, 4 Strategies for part accuracy improvement).
The NDIP-LU combination thus teach:
acquiring a three-dimensional model to be manufactured, layering the three-dimensional model to obtain
cyclically controlling robot arms of a master boto and a slave robot for incremental forming in an actual application environment respectively, according to the current main working path and the
taking a deviation value of the formed curved surface from a target curved surface as a state vector,
The NDIP-LU combination is not relied on for the generation of candidate main working paths and corresponding candidate supporting paths. The NDIP-LU combination is not relied on for using a reinforcement learning model for reinforcement learning of a supporting strategy. However, MEHR in an analogous art teaches to receive a specification for forming paths such that a model is used in the control loop and “can be used in the design of experiments offline to determine optimal policy for forming the part” ([0097]). MEHR also teaches that two different strategies for forming a cone can be evaluated by a machine learning model determination of a preferred path, and thus suggests selection of a preferred path, and that the “model can be used predict the outcome of both strategies to determine the best strategy or their combination for different parts” ([0098]). MEHR also teaches the use of a machine learning model to be used during the formation process ([0079]).
NDIP, LU and MEHR are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of incremental sheet forming. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of MEHR to the teachings of NDIP-LU such that NDIP-LU’s incremental formation process, already configured to receive a model and determine an initial main working path and a corresponding supporting path, would have been configured to generate a plurality of main working paths and select a preferred path according to a formation strategy. MEHR does not explicitly teach the generation of candidate supporting paths corresponding to the candidate main working paths; however, in view of NDIP teaches that the supporting paths must be synchronized such that the supporting tool follows the main tool in order for parts to be formed correctly. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the generation of candidate supporting paths synchronized with an associated candidate main working path would be a natural extension, as the process already generates and evaluates candidate toolpaths. Additionally, in view of MEHR’s teaching that a learning model “may be also be applied by the controller 255 of the robotic system 260” during the forming process, in recognition that NDIP-LU’s control unit is already configured to receive feedback during the formation process such that the process can be corrected and/or optimized, one of ordinary skill in the art would have included such a feature for the purpose of permitting fine control to enhance the geometric accuracy of the process (MEHR, [0005]).
Regarding claim 3
NDIP-LU-MEHR teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
MEHR also teaches constructing a digital simulation environment that matches the actual application environment of the three-dimensional model to be manufactured and simulating the manufacturing of the model such that the results are used to train the machine learning model ([0085]-[0089]: “the simulation module 225 can generate a(e.g., large) data set indicating how a specific metal is deformed with this process(e.g., how metal deforms in response to certain input parameters). The simulation data is used to train a model (e.g., by a training module)”).
Regarding claim 8
Claim 8 recites a double-point incremental forming manufacturing apparatus configured to implement, via a controller, the method of claim 1. MEHR teaches a double-point incremental forming manufacturing apparatus comprising a controller (Fig. 1, [0064]).
The remaining limitations of claim 8 are substantially the same as claim 1 and are rejected as per such.
Regarding claims 9 and 10
NDIP-LU-MEHR teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. NDIP teaches an electronic device comprising a memory (claim 10, computer readable medium), a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executed by the implement the limitations of claim 1 ([0038]: “control unit 116 includes one or more processing units that may be preprogrammed to control the movements of the tools relative to the sheet along a prescribed toolpath created in accordance with the methods”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NDIP-LU-MEHR in view of YASUKOCHI (US20230004140A1).
Regarding claim 2
NDIP-LU-MEHR teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
NDIP-LU-MEHR teach acquiring a three-dimensional model and acquiring a plurality of candidate supporting paths corresponding to the main working path according to a plurality of supporting strategies for each main working path respectively, wherein the supporting strategy is one of a global supporting strategy, a local peripheral supporting strategy, a local front supporting strategy and a following supporting strategy (see MEHR [0098] model used to determine a combination of strategies to form part that yields best outcome, “starts the forming from outside and moves in a circular pattern toward the inside” suggests global supporting strategy, “starts forming from inside and moves in a circular pattern toward the outside” suggests local supporting strategy).
NDIP-LU-MEHR are not relied: to apply an offset-on-curved surface function to layer the model to acquire a first preset number of curve paths and to divide the curved path into a second preset number of discrete points to generate a working path according to the path and points. However, YASUKOCHI in analogous art teaches applying an offset-on-curved surface function to layer a model into a first preset number of curve paths and to divide the curved path into a second preset number of points to generate a working path ([0037]-[0040]: “dividing line generation unit 18 generates dividing lines consisting of a plurality of curves extending along the tool movement curved surface […] calculation unit 20 calculates the positions of the intersections Pi between the curve C, which is the trajectory of the center point Ot of the tool T when the tool T moves on the offset curved surface” Fig. 12 shows a curved surface layered into a preset number of curve paths (C) wherein the curved path is divided into a preset number of points (Pi)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of YASUKOCHI to the teachings of NDIP-LU-MEHR such that the model acquired in NDIP-LU-MEHR’s process would be layered such to acquire a first number of curve paths from which discrete points would be acquired to optimize toolpath generation. YASUKOCHI teaches that implementing takes into consideration information about adjacent tool paths and that the method minimizes errors between adjacent toolpaths ([0004]), thereby providing the motivation to combine.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, either individually or in combination, training the deep reinforcement learning model by cyclically simulating incrementally forming a surface, comparing results of the simulated formed surface to a target surface, and updating simulated paths and parameters until convergence is met.
Conclusion
BRAND (US20200310382A1) teaches layering an acquired model to generate curve paths which are segmented for toolpath generation.
CAO (US20130103177A1) teaches methods of synchronizing a supporting path to a main path.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael V Farina whose telephone number is (571)272-4982. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-6:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/M.V.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1The specification was referenced to the fullest extent possible in an effort to determine the scope of the claimed invention; however, in addition to the 112(b) issues addressed herein, apparent translation issues present in the claims and specification impeded a full and precise understanding of the claimed subject matter.
2 Statement applicable to subsequent dependent claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Prosecution Insights