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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-11, in the reply filed on August 14, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Van de Vrie does not disclose the common technical feature. This is persuasive, however Alam in view of Swanson or Dudley renders the common technical feature obvious, as described in detail in the 35 USC 103 rejections below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-11 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 is rejected because there are no active, positive steps delimiting how the method is practiced, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the surface." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the finished eyeglass structure." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the connecting region." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the phrase is referring back to the previously recited “at least one connecting region” or a second connecting region.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alam (“Development of 3D-Printed Glasses for Color Vision Deficiency” Adv. Eng. Mater. 2022, 24, 2200211) in view of Swanson (US 2014/0252684).
Claims 1-3 and 10: Alam discloses a method for additively manufacturing a component of an eyeglass structure by stereolithography (abstract), wherein the component includes at least one eyeglass frame having an inner edge (fig. 2), wherein an outer support structure for supporting the eyeglass frame is manufactured together with the eyeglass frame wherein the outer support structure of the manufactured component is connected to the component (fig. 2; pages 3-4; Table 1),wherein the surface of the component includes at least one connecting region (fig. 2), wherein the connecting region is concealed in a use position of the finished eyeglass structure (fig. 2).
Alam is silent as to positions of additional support structures. However, in the same field of endeavor, Swanson discloses a method for additively manufacturing components, including building support structures as needed to support areas of the components being printed (¶ 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have included multiple support structures in the method of Alam in order to support areas of the components being printed.
Claims 4-5: Swanson discloses support structures in cavities being disc-shaped (¶ 4).
Claim 6-7: Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza 245 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 8: Alam discloses the component including two eyeglass frames connected by a bridge (fig. 2).
Claim 9: Alam discloses the bridge being arranged vertically during the manufacturing (fig. 2).
Claim 11: Alam discloses the component and structure being manufactured from a same material (pp. 3-4).
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alam (“Development of 3D-Printed Glasses for Color Vision Deficiency” Adv. Eng. Mater. 2022, 24, 2200211) in view of Dudley (US 2014/0265034).
Claims 1-3 and 10: Alam discloses a method for additively manufacturing a component of an eyeglass structure by stereolithography (abstract), wherein the component includes at least one eyeglass frame having an inner edge (fig. 2), wherein an outer support structure for supporting the eyeglass frame is manufactured together with the eyeglass frame wherein the outer support structure of the manufactured component is connected to the component (fig. 2; pages 3-4; Table 1),wherein the surface of the component includes at least one connecting region (fig. 2), wherein the connecting region is concealed in a use position of the finished eyeglass structure (fig. 2).
Alam is silent as to positions of additional support structures. However, in the same field of endeavor, Dudley discloses a method for additively manufacturing components by stereolithography, including automatically generating and building support structures as needed to support areas of the components being printed (¶¶ 106-110). SLA processes inherently require supports to stabilize overhangs and to connect parts to the build platform. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have included multiple support structures in the method of Alam in order to support areas of the components being printed.
Claims 4-5: Dudley discloses support structures in cavities being disc-shaped (¶ 97).
Claim 6-7: Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza 245 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 8: Alam discloses the component including two eyeglass frames connected by a bridge (fig. 2).
Claim 9: Alam discloses the bridge being arranged vertically during the manufacturing (fig. 2).
Claim 11: Alam discloses the component and structure being manufactured from a same material (pp. 3-4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY THROWER whose telephone number is (571)270-5517. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm MT M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1487. 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.
/LARRY W THROWER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754