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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “for use in a lighting device” in the preamble but do not incorporate the 3D produced component into a lighting device within the body of the claim. This language constitutes intended use and the product must be capable of being used in a lighting device but the prior art does not have to positively recite that the 3D printed component is incorporated into a lighting device.
Claim 1 recites “second shape/component for the lighting device” in the body of the claim at lines 9-10 & 13. The use of “/” between the words shape and component are being interpreted as an abbreviation for “and/or” and either a second shape, a component for the lighting device or a combination of the two will be considered to read on the limitation.
Claims 1 recites the term “component for a lighting device” which is broadly disclosed as:
Said method of producing a component for use in a lighting device results in said 3D-printed component for use in a lighting device. Such a component may comprise a complicated shape with a single or a plurality of curvatures due to optical, structural, thermal, electronic or aesthetic requirements. In some examples, said component may be one of (or may be part of one of) a lamp, a reflector, a cover, a light guide, a blind, a light engine, a heat sink, a cable guide, a lens, a substrate accommodating electronics, a collimator, a connector, a luminaire housing or a luminaire. Said lighting device may be a luminaire, a lamp, a light pole, an electronics device comprising a light source, or a lighting device comprised within a vehicle. (Specification, pg 3)
Thus, it is apparent that “component for use in a lighting device” is not limited to a component of a lighting device but can be anything that is attached to a lighting device or related to lighting as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11, & 16-20 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.
Claim 1: Claim 1 recites the limitation “removing the flexible substrate and the component either remains…” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the component, which is defined as “the component comprising a removable flexible substrate” can have the flexible substrate removed and still be referred to as the “component”.
For the purpose of examination, the claim is being interpreted as reciting:
A method of producing a component for use in a lighting device, the method comprising:
forming a component by 3D printing a polymer material on a removable flexible substrate, in a printing structure, wherein the removable flexible substrate has a stiffness and a first shape;
using the printing structure to cause the first shape of the flexible substrate to change into a second shape, after printing; and
removing the flexible substrate and the component either remains in the second shape or returns to the first shape.
Claims 2-6, 8, 11, & 16-20: Claims 2-6, 8, 11, & 16-20 are rejected as being indefinite because they depend from claim 1 and do not remedy the issues of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 16-20 & 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (Zhang, Q. et al. Smart three-dimensional lightweight structure triggered from a thin composite sheet via 3D printing technique. Sci. Rep. 6, 22431; doi: 10.1038/srep22431 (2016); hereafter Zhang).
Claim 1: Zhang discloses method of producing a component (title and Fig. 1), the method comprising:
forming a component by 3D printing a polymer material on a removable flexible substrate, in a printing structure, wherein the removable flexible substrate has a stiffness and a first shape (PLA is 3D printed on paper to form a printed structure on paper wherein paper is a flexible substrate with a stiffness and a first shape; Fig. 1);
using the printing structure to cause the first shape of the flexible substrate to change into a second shape, after printing (see Fig. 1b); and
removing the flexible substrate and the component either remains in the second shape or returns to the first shape (see Fig. 1c, the paper is removed and the second shape remains).
Claim 2: The bending force leads to elastic or plastic deformation of the flexible substrate.
Claim 3: The second shape of the flexible substrate comprises a bending angle of at least 5 degrees in respect to the first shape of the flexible substrate (see Fig. 4, angle is greater than 5 degrees).
Claim 4: The method further comprises applying thermal treatment for shrinking (the PLA material contracts, pg 3).
Claim 5: The at least one print characteristic is a patterned distribution of polymeric material (see Fig. 1).
Claim 16: The printing structure causes the first shape of the flexible substrate to change into a desired second shape (see Fig. 1).
Claim 17: The printing the polymer material onto the flexible substrate includes providing grooves in the printed polymer material to help cool an area or a volume of the printing structure, thereby providing a higher bending on a surface of the area of the flexible substrate (the degree of bending depends on the thickness, see pg 4, wherein different thicknesses and spacing can be used throughout the print, pgs 4-5).
Claim 18: The printing the polymer material onto the flexible substrate includes providing a perforation in the printed polymer material to accumulate internal stress in an area around the perforation, thereby contributing to the bending force exerted on a surface area of the flexible substrate (the printed material is noncontinuous and thus has perforations, Figs. 1-3).
Claim 19: The printing the polymer material onto the flexible sbustrate includes providing a print characteristic of a patterned distribution in the printed polymer material such that the printed pattern causes the flexible substrate to change into the desired second shape during shrinking (see Figs. 1-3).
Claim 20: The flexible substrate returns to the first shape when the polymer material is removed based on the amount of bending force exerted (the initial flat shape can be reversibly recovered, pg 6).
Claim 26: Zhang discloses a method of 3D-printing producing a component (Fig. 1), the component comprising a removable flexible substrate having a stiffness and a first shape (paper is the substrate), and a polymer material (PLA), the method comprising:
3D-printing the polymer material onto the removable flexible substrate in a printing structure (PLA is 3D printed on said paper in a pattern, Fig. 1);
using the printing structure to cause the first shape of the flexible substrate to change into a second shape, after printing (Fig. 1b); and
altering the flexible substrate (the paper is torn off, i.e. altered by tearing, Fig. 1c) and the component remains in the second shape (the second shape remains as the paper is torn off, Fig. 1c).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11, 16-20, & 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boonekamp et al. (US PG Pub 2019/0160769; hereafter ‘769) in view of Zhang.
Claim 1: ‘769 is directed towards a 3D printed reflector (title) for a lighting device (abstract) and teaches forming said component for a lighting device by 3D printing (¶ 1).
‘769 does not teach claimed 3D printing process.
However, Zang, which is also directed towards 3D printing (title), discloses a method of producing a component (title and Fig. 1), the method comprising:
forming a component by 3D printing a polymer material on a removable flexible substrate, in a printing structure, wherein the removable flexible substrate has a stiffness and a first shape (PLA is 3D printed on paper to form a printed structure on paper wherein paper is a flexible substrate with a stiffness and a first shape; Fig. 1);
using the printing structure to cause the first shape of the flexible substrate to change into a second shape, after printing (see Fig. 1b); and
removing the flexible substrate and the component either remains in the second shape or returns to the first shape (see Fig. 1c, the paper is removed and the second shape remains).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the method of Zhang to form the 3D structure of ‘769 because it is an art recognized 3D printing method of forming a 3D object which would have predictably produced the desired structure.
Claim 2: Zhang teaches that the bending force leads to elastic or plastic deformation of the flexible substrate.
Claim 3: Zhang teaches that the second shape of the flexible substrate comprises a bending angle of at least 5 degrees in respect to the first shape of the flexible substrate (see Fig. 4, angle is greater than 5 degrees).
Claim 4: Zhang teaches that the method further comprises applying thermal treatment for shrinking (the PLA material contracts, pg 3).
Claim 5: Zhang teaches that the at least one print characteristic is a patterned distribution of polymeric material (see Fig. 1).
Claim 6: The polymer can be polycarbonate (¶ 6, ‘769).
Claim 8: The printing structure is connected to a light source and thus can comprise a light source (¶ 13, ‘769).
Claim 11: The 3D printed material can comprise metal and polymer (i.e. can be electrically conductive and thus read on conductive tracks, ¶ 6, ‘769).
Claim 16: Zhang teaches that the printing structure causes the first shape of the flexible substrate to change into a desired second shape (see Fig. 1).
Claim 17: Zhang teaches that the printing the polymer material onto the flexible substrate includes providing grooves in the printed polymer material to help cool an area or a volume of the printing structure, thereby providing a higher bending on a surface of the area of the flexible substrate (the degree of bending depends on the thickness, see pg 4, wherein different thicknesses and spacing can be used throughout the print, pgs 4-5).
Claim 18: Zhang teaches that the printing the polymer material onto the flexible substrate includes providing a perforation in the printed polymer material to accumulate internal stress in an area around the perforation, thereby contributing to the bending force exerted on a surface area of the flexible substrate (the printed material is noncontinuous and thus has perforations, Figs. 1-3).
Claim 19: Zhang teaches that the printing the polymer material onto the flexible substrate includes providing a print characteristic of a patterned distribution in the printed polymer material such that the printed pattern causes the flexible substrate to change into the desired second shape during shrinking (see Figs. 1-3).
Claim 20: Zhang teaches that the flexible substrate returns to the first shape when the polymer material is removed based on the amount of bending force exerted (the initial flat shape can be reversibly recovered, pg 6).
Claim 26: ‘769 is directed towards a 3D printed reflector (title) for a lighting device (abstract) and teaches forming said component for a lighting device by 3D printing (¶ 1).
‘769 does not teach claimed 3D printing process.
Zhang discloses a method of 3D-printing producing a component (Fig. 1), the component comprising a removable flexible substrate having a stiffness and a first shape (paper is the substrate), and a polymer material (PLA), the method comprising:
3D-printing the polymer material onto the removable flexible substrate in a printing structure (PLA is 3D printed on said paper in a pattern, Fig. 1);
using the printing structure to cause the first shape of the flexible substrate to change into a second shape, after printing (Fig. 1b); and
altering the flexible substrate (the paper is torn off, i.e. altered by tearing, Fig. 1c) and the component remains in the second shape (the second shape remains as the paper is torn off, Fig. 1c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the method of Zhang to form the 3D structure of ‘769 because it is an art recognized 3D printing method of forming a 3D object which would have predictably produced the desired structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M MELLOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3593. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-4:30PM CST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/James M Mellott/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights