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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 5-13 in the reply filed on 06/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-4 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/24/202.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 13, “wherein the additive manufacturing is a fused deposition modelling, FDM, process or a stereolithography, SLA, process” should read --wherein the additive manufacturing is a fused deposition modelling process or a stereolithography process--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the additive manufacturing is performed layer by layer, preferably in a spiralized fashion, preferably comprising creation of an unbroken perimeter path common to the object sections and the section crease, and creation of a plurality of further unbroken paths, within the perimeter path, common to the object sections and the section crease.” The limitation renders the claim indefinite because the examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim since it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. For compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as --wherein the additive manufacturing is performed layer by layer--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 5, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noma, Y. et al., “Pop-Up Print Rapidly 3D Printing Mechanically Reversible Objects in the Folded State” (of record, hereinafter Noma) in view of Rihcazek, et al., “Curved Foldable Tailored Fiber Reinforcements for Moldless Customized Bio-Composite Structures. Proof of Concept: Biomimetic NFRP Stools” (of record, hereinafter Rihaczek).
Regarding claim 5, Noma teaches a method of manufacturing a lighting device comprising additive manufacturing (Fig 1(b)) of an object preform (Fig 1(c)) on a platform (Fig 1 (b)) using the first additive manufacturing material, the object preform comprising the first object section and the second object section (Fig 2(d); see white and black sections), where the first object section and the second object section are folded in relation to each other along the section crease and wherein the object preform has a first extension (L1,L3) along a first direction (X) on the platform (Fig 14; see folded object).
Noma teaches a method further comprising releasing the object preform from the platform (Fig 1(b)-(d), see completed 3D printed folded objects of Fig 1(c)-(d) are released from the platform of Fig 1(b)).
Noma teaches a method further comprising unfolding the released object preform, whereby the object is obtained and where the object has a second extension (L2, L4), larger than the first extension (L1, L3), along the first direction (X) (Fig 13-14; see unfolded object).
While Noma teaches a method of manufacturing 3D printed folded objects, Noma does not teach a method of manufacturing a lighting device comprising a light source and an object that is configured as one or more of (i) at least part of a lighting device housing, (ii) at least part of a wall of a lighting chamber, and (iii) an optical element, wherein the object is manufactured by additive manufacturing using a first additive manufacturing material, wherein the object comprises a first object section and a second object section adjacent to the first object section, and wherein the second object section is separated from the first object section by a section crease.
However, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned (manufacturing a light device; see MPEP 2141.01(a)), Rihaczek teaches a lighting device comprising a light source and an object (Fig 17(b) that is configured as one or more of (i) at least part of a lighting device housing, (ii) at least part of a wall of a lighting chamber, and (iii) an optical element, wherein the object is manufactured by additive manufacturing (TFP; see §1.3 and §2.4.2) using a first additive manufacturing material (see §2.4.1), wherein the object (Fig 16; see sample 2) comprises a first object section (Fig 16; see upper section) and a second object section (Fig 16; see lower section) adjacent to the first object section, and wherein the second object section is separated from the first object section by a section crease (Fig 16; see curved hinge in the middle of the part).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method of manufacturing 3D printed folded objects disclosed in Noma by applying the known technique of manufacturing a lighting device comprising a light source and an object that is configured as one or more of (i) at least part of a lighting device housing, (ii) at least part of a wall of a lighting chamber, and (iii) an optical element, wherein the object is manufactured by additive manufacturing using a first additive manufacturing material, wherein the object comprises a first object section and a second object section adjacent to the first object section, and wherein the second object section is separated from the first object section by a section crease as disclosed in Rihaczek to the method of manufacturing disclosed in Noma with predictable results and resulting in an improved method. MPEP 2143(D).
Regarding claim 11, as applied to the method of claim 5, Noma in view of Rihaczek teach a method wherein the additive manufacturing comprises creation of spatial distinctions that facilitate subsequent configuration of the object for a specific use (Noma, Fig 14-15).
Regarding claim 13, as applied to the method of claim 5, Noma in view of Rihaczek teach a method wherein the additive manufacturing is a fused deposition modelling process (Noma, Page 61; see “Material” section).
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noma, Y. et al., “Pop-Up Print Rapidly 3D Printing Mechanically Reversible Objects in the Folded State” (of record, hereinafter Noma) in view of Rihcazek, et al., “Curved Foldable Tailored Fiber Reinforcements for Moldless Customized Bio- Composite Structures. Proof of Concept: Biomimetic NFRP Stools” (of record, hereinafter Rihaczek), as applied to the method of claim 5, and in further view of Ahmed, A. et al., “4D Printing: Fundamentals, Materials, Applications and Challenges” (of record, hereinafter Ahmed).
Regarding claims 6-10, as applied to the method of claim 5, Noma in view of Rihaczek do not specify a method wherein the object sections are folded in relation to each other along the section crease by an angle (A) less than or equal to 90 degrees nor wherein the additive manufacturing comprises creating at least three object sections and wherein the object has a second extension (L4) that is at least three times larger than the first extension (L3) along the first direction (X); wherein the additive manufacturing is performed layer by layer; wherein the additive manufacturing of the section crease comprises creation of bridging parts between the object sections, wherein a bridging part width (T2) is smaller than an object section width (T1); nor wherein the creation of bridging parts between the object sections comprises using a second additive manufacturing material, different than the first additive manufacturing material.
However, in the same field of endeavor, 4D printing, Ahmed teaches a method wherein the object sections are folded in relation to each other along the section crease by an angle (A) less than or equal to 90 degrees and wherein the additive manufacturing comprises creating at least three object sections and wherein the object has a second extension (L4) that is at least three times larger than the first extension (L3) along the first direction (X) (Figs 6(e) and 18(a)); wherein the additive manufacturing is performed layer by layer (Fig 9(a)); and wherein the additive manufacturing of the section crease comprises creation of bridging parts between the object sections, wherein a bridging part width (T2) is smaller than an object section width (T1), and wherein the creation of bridging parts between the object sections comprises using a second additive manufacturing (Figs 6(e) and 18(a)).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method of manufacturing disclosed in Noma in view of Rihaczek by applying the known technique wherein the object sections are folded in relation to each other along the section crease by an angle (A) less than or equal to 90 degrees nor wherein the additive manufacturing comprises creating at least three object sections and wherein the object has a second extension (L4) that is at least three times larger than the first extension (L3) along the first direction (X); wherein the additive manufacturing is performed layer by layer; wherein the additive manufacturing of the section crease comprises creation of bridging parts between the object sections, wherein a bridging part width (T2) is smaller than an object section width (T1); nor wherein the creation of bridging parts between the object sections comprises using a second additive manufacturing material, different than the first additive manufacturing material disclosed in Ahmed to the method of manufacturing disclosed in Noma in view of Rihaczek with predictable results and resulting in an improved method. MPEP 2143(D).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record, Noma in view of Rihaczek, discloses a method comprising additive manufacturing of an object preform on a platform using the first additive manufacturing material, the object preform comprising the first object section and the second object section, where the first object section and the second object section are folded in relation to each other along the section crease and wherein the object preform has a first extension (L1, L3) along a first direction (X) on the platform; releasing the object preform from the platform; and unfolding the released object preform, whereby the object is obtained and where the object has a second extension (L2, L4), larger than the first extension (L1, L3), along the first direction (X) (see rejection of claim 5 above).
The method as claimed is deemed novel and non-obvious because the prior art of record along with a further prior art search do not teach or suggest a method wherein the additive manufacturing comprises creation of a plurality of temporary jumper connectors connecting adjacent object sections, and wherein the method further comprises removing, prior to the unfolding, the temporary jumper connectors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JaMel M Nelson whose telephone number is (571)272-8174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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, Galen Hauth can be reached on (571) 270-5516. 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.
/JAMEL M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights