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
Amendments to the claims, filed on 12/1/25, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 12/1/25 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The term “bending tool” of claim 1 is being interpreted very broadly which is proper given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification standard (see instant specification page 4, lines 1-6).
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatani (JP 2021-045951 A, translation relied upon for text that contains the original relied upon for drawings) in view of 3D Print Eyewear (2015).
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 6, Nakatani teaches a method for manufacturing a 3D article by means of 3D printing, said method comprising the steps of:
printing a 3D structure (e.g., modeled object performed by fused deposition modelling) comprising a first surface and a second surface being opposite to said first surface, the 3D structure comprising a portion extending from one of the first surface and the second surface in a first plane (background art, claims, page 7 drawing descriptions, figs 1-4)
cooling said 3D structure and heating said one of said first and said second surfaces of said 3D structure (e.g., cooling and heating as necessary) (page 4, examples)
deforming said 3D structure, by means of bending the portion in a second plane deviating from said first plane, such that the 3D article is obtained (pages 4-5)
cooling said 3D article (e.g., cooling and heating as necessary) (page 4)
Nakatani fails to suggest printing at least one bending tool for defining an angle of bending. However Nakatani teaches embodiments wherein by arranging a portion made of a thermoplastic elastomer at a portion that comes into contact with the human body, the contact with the modeled object is softened, and it can be deformed and fixed in a desired shape by a specific thermoplastic resin. For example, in the case of a spectacle frame (e.g., bending tool), a thermoplastic elastomer may be placed on a nose pad or an ear stem (i.e., bent or deformed) where it comes into contact with the skin (page 5).
3D Print Eyewear teaches it was known in the art at the time of invention that eyewear (e.g., spectacle frames) could be designed and manufactured by fused deposition modeling (page 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, per the teachings of 3D Print Eyewear, to co-manufacture the spectacle frames of Nakatani via fused deposition modelling since it would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, e.g., choosing an identified, predictable solution with a reasonable expectation of success (e.g., using fused deposition modeling to manufacture eyewear or spectacle frames).
Regarding the order of the heating, cooling, and manufacture of said bending tool, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to arrange the process steps as necessary since selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP § 2144.04 IV C).
Regarding claim 3, Nakatani teaches the object may deformed by placing it in a warm water bath (page 5-6), and it was generally known at the time of invention warm water baths are heated using hot plates (i.e., heated plates); so, Nakatani would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention heating is performed by arranging said one of said first and said second surfaces of said 3D structure on a heating plate (e.g., via immersion in a warm water batch on the hot plate). In the alternative, Nakatani teaches the molded product can be finished in a desired shape by heat treatment, so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a heating plate for the heat treatment, since it would have been obvious to try, e.g., choosing an identified, predictable solution with a reasonable expectation of success (e.g., using a heat plate to heat the 3D structure, so it can be shaped or deformed).
Regarding claim 4, Nakatani fails to suggest heating is performed at a temperature from 120 °C to 180 °C. However, Nakatani teaches the 3D structure or modeled object may have parts made of heat resistant resins such as ABS resin or polyethylene terephthalate resin; and that deformation temperature (e.g., glass transition temperature) depends upon the type or composition of the thermoplastic resin used (page 4-5); so, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the 3D structure or modeled object could be made or fabricated from a heat resistant thermoplastic; and therein the heating temperature would need adjusted to optimize the ability of the 3D structure or modeled object to reach its glass transition temperature and therein be deformed accordingly. Nakatani teaches using its method to form tools or parts (page 5); so using a heat resistant thermoplastic resin to form the 3D structure or modeled object in the form of a tool would be important if the tool or part is subjected to an environment with a heightened temperature but below that of the glass transition temperature of the heat resistant resin. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would merely been optimizing the materials of fabrication of the 3D structure or modeled object, and therein the glass transition temperature, for the desired end use application.
Regarding claim 5, Nakatani teaches the shape of the 3D structure or modeled object can be twisted, bent, or otherwise freely deformed (abstract, page 5) which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that of stretching the 3D structure or modeled object. Regarding the order of the stretching the 3D structure or modeled object, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to arrange the process steps as necessary since selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP § 2144.04 IV C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783