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 .
Response to Amendment
Claim 1 is amended.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 03/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant contends on page 2 of remarks that:
“Applicants respectfully submit that Shenzhen fails to teach "wherein the method comprises generating at a fixed second x,y-position the stack with layers having a layer height (H), thereby providing the stack with a second stack height (H12) at the fixed second x,y position, wherein height variations of each layer of the stack of layers are compensated by gradually changing one or more layer heights to provide a constant total stack height or a total stack height of 0.9 H12/H to provide spatially varying optical effects in combination with light transmissive polymeric thermoplastic material," as claimed above."
The examiner disagrees. While modified Shenzhen is not specific about varying the layer height to provide spatially varying optical effects in combination with light transmissive polymeric thermoplastic material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the layer thickness ratio to achieve a desired aesthetic effect as taught by Hikmet (page 10, lines 28-34- page 11, lines 1-10) and the method of modified Shenzhen is capable of controlling the layer relationship as claimed which would inherently result in optical effects when used with light transmissive polymeric thermoplastic material as Hikmet teaches (ABS “optical component” “luminaire”, page 3, lines 1-10 and 14-20).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shenzhen of record (CN110271183A) in view of Hikmet of record (WO2018224395A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Shenzhen teaches a method and a device for forming a micro-layer thickness of a three-dimensional object (P0009) which is construed to be a method for producing a 3D item by means of fused deposition modelling using a 3D printer.
Shenzhen teaches a printing substrate (P0026) which meets the limitation of a 3D printing stage and Shenzhen further teaches a molten linear material having a slightly variable line width and a slightly variable line height, and the resulting fusion surface of the N+1 layer and the N layer is a curved surface, mainly because the linear material is heated and melted and then on the platform as needed. The fusion deposition on the same level is performed to generate a thin layer of a three-dimensional object having a micro-thickness layer, and then the same layer of fusion deposition and superposition fusion are deposited on the upper micro-thickness layer on-demand. A thin layer of micro-thickness is formed in the next layer, and a structure having a plurality of micro-thickness-thick sheets is gradually formed, thereby constructing a desired three-dimensional object having a micro-layer thickness (P0027) which meets the limitation of a stack of layers of a 3D printed material is generated by layer-wise depositing an extrudate from 3D printable material providing each layer of the stack with a non-constant layer height (H), wherein at a fixed first x,y-position: (i) the layer height (H) increases for consecutive layers and then the layer height (H) decreases for consecutive layers, or (ii) the layer height (H) decreases for consecutive layers and then the layer height (H) increases for consecutive layers.
PNG
media_image1.png
153
312
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 of Shenzen
Shenzhen teaches a method of 3D printing but is silent to at least part of the 3D printable material comprising a light transmissive polymeric thermoplastic material to show optical effects and controlling the optical effects by a printing method.
Hikmet, in the same field of endeavor, 3D printing, teaches at least part of the 3D printable material comprising a light transmissive polymeric thermoplastic material to show optical effects and controlling the optical effects by a printing method (ABS “optical component” “luminaire”, page 3, lines 1-10 and 14-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a light transmissive polymeric thermoplastic material in a 3D printing method for the purpose of creating an aesthetically pleasing visual effect as taught by Hikmet (page 2, lines 9-11).
While modified Shenzhen is not specific about the ratio of layer thickness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the layer thickness ratio to achieve a desired aesthetic effect as taught by Hikmet (page 10, lines 28-34- page 11, lines 1-10) and the method of modified Shenzhen is capable of controlling the layer relationship as claimed such as gradually changing one or more layer heights to provide a constant total stack height (fig.3). The height variations of each layer of the stack of layers of Shenzhen appear to be compensated to provide a total stack height of 0.9 ≤ H12/H11 ≤1 which is relatively constant (fig.3 above).
Regarding claim 4, Hikmet teaches wherein the polygonal cross-section of the core portion 15 rotates or spirals within the enveloping shell portion 13 in order to create such a locally dependent optical effects (page 13 lines 33-34- page 14 lines 1-4) which meets the limitation of printing a plurality of maximum overall heights (HU) and minimum overall heights (HL2) in the stack, where the maximum overall heights (HU) and minimum overall heights (HL2) of each layer follow a spiral on a surface of the 3D item and wherein the method comprises printing a concave 3D item (fig.8).
Regarding claim 5, Hikmet teaches that the optical component is built up of a plurality of identical layers 11 stacked on top of each other (Page 10 lines 28-34) construed to be printing the layers for the subset of a total number of layers at the fixed first x,y position with a constant layer width (W).
Regarding claim 6, Shenzhen teaches a sinusoidal curve as the shape of the layer (fig.3) construed to be that the method comprises printing the layers for the subset of a total number of layers at the fixed first x,y-position with layer heights (H) that vary according to a mathematical function selected from the group consisting of sinusoidally, triangularly, saw tooth, and square, or a combination of two or more of these.
Regarding claim 7, modified Shenzhen teaches light transmissive polymeric thermoplastic material is transparent for visible light (page 10, lines 21-27) but is silent to the specific wavelength of light transmitting to be in a range of 450-650 nm. However, it is well known that the visible light spectrum is the range of 380-700 nm (NASA, Visible Light, teaching reference, https://science.nasa.gov/ems/09_visiblelight/) and as the claimed range is practically the whole visible spectrum, it would be obvious that visible light transmission of the material would be in this range.
Regarding claim 8, Hikmet teaches the 3D printable material and the 3D printed material comprise one or more of polycarbonate (PC), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyethylene naphthalate (PEN), styrene-acrylonitrile resin (SAN), polysulfone (PSU), polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), polytethylene terephthalate (PET), poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), polystyrene (PS), styrene acrylic copolymers (SMMA), and polyurethane (PU) (Page 17, lines 15-20).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erica Funk whose telephone number is (571)272-3785. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 5712707001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERICA HARTSELL FUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights