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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Allowability of claimed composition directed to a filament is withdrawn due to new ground of rejection based on WO 2017/161120 A1 (Sep. 21, 2017) found during search update. The WO teaches filament for obtaining an article by fused deposition modeling (FDM) and all withdrawn claims are rejoined and examined together. Thus, the restriction requirement of April 10, 2023 would be moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 3, 5, 6, 16, 20, 21, 26-28, 37 and 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2017/161120 A1 (Sep. 21, 2017).
WO teaches compositions comprising two or three polymers useful for obtaining 3D printed articles by crosslinking in abstract.
WO teaches that both first resin and second resin are functionalized for crosslinking in claim 1.
The instant specification that that the instantly recited crosslinking compound of claim 1 can be present as a separate compound and a grafted to a polymer (i.e., functionalized) in [0049].
WO teaches a composition comprising polyethylene terephthalate (PET) carrying an additive such as a multi-functional epoxy compound in [0060]. WO further teaches the PET composition is compounded with a nylon or polymer carrying a multi-functional amine additive or a polyhydroxy compound with a suitable catalyst additive in the [0060]. WO teaches that the first resin and/or the second resin is filament for fused deposition modeling (FDM) in [0119].
WO teaches that a first resin and a second resin can be same such as nylon in [0017] and claim 13. WO further teaches employing a third resin such as LCP, PEEK, PEI, PET, PPA, PPS, PSU and aramid in [0018] and claim 14 meeting the recited aromatic polymers of claim 1.
Although WO is silent as to a form of a composition comprising the functionalized nylon and third resin, WO teaches filaments for fused deposition modeling (FDM) in [0119]. Thus, the composition comprising the functionalized nylon and third resin for fused deposition modeling (FDM) would be expected to be a form of the filament inherently. Further, WO teaches the first polymer or the second polymer can contain a reactive crosslinker such as DOPO in ]0016-0017] and thus a nylon as both first resin and second resin or PET further comprising the DOPO and a filament there of would meet the recited aromatic polymer and a separate crosslinking compound of claim 1.
The third polymer and nylon or polymer carrying a multi-functional amine additive or a polyhydroxy compound with a suitable catalyst additive taught by WO would meet the recited aromatic polymer and crosslinking compound, respectively, absent further limitations.
Thus, the instant invention lacks novelty.
Regarding claims 3, 5 and 6, PEEK taught by WO would comprise the recited structure of claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, WO teaches employing a catalyst in order to accelerate the crosslinking in [0055].
Regarding claims 20 and 21, WO teaches employing fillers such as glass fibers and silica in an amount of 1 wt.% to 59 wt.% in [0035] and [0074-0076]
Regarding claim 26, although the claimed invention is a composition before crosslinking, WO teaches filaments for fused deposition modeling (FDM) for obtaining an article.
Regarding claims 27 and 28, WO teaches an article obtained by the fused deposition modeling (FDM) by utilizing filaments comprising components falling within scope of the instant composition. Thus, the composition of WO would be expected have the recited properties inherently.
Regarding claims 37 and 40-42, WO teaches a printed article obtained by the fused deposition modeling (FDM) by utilizing filaments comprising components falling within scope of the instant composition and utilization of heat for crosslinking [0054].
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 14-17, 20, 21, 26-28, 37 and 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/161120 A1 (Sep. 21, 2017).
Regarding claims 14, 15 and 17, when patentability is predicated upon a change in a condition of a prior art composition, such as a change in concentration or in temperature, or both, the burden is on Applicant to establish with objective evidence that the change is critical, i.e., it leads to a new unexpected result. It is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05.
Utilization of a higher ratio and amount of a crosslinking compound would be expected to yield a rigid or less flexible article inherently. Thus, a modification to the ratio and amount of a crosslinking compound in order to adjust the rigidity/flexibility of the article depending on a final application requiring a different rigidity/flexibility would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Claims 4, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/161120 A1 (Sep. 21, 2017).as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 14-17, 20, 21, 26-28, 37 and 40-42 above, and further in view of CA 2906858 A1 (Sep. 18, 2014, Published as WO 2014/145834 A1)
Regarding claims 4, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 14-18:
CA teaches a cross-linked organic polymer obtained from a crosslinkable
composition comprising an aromatic polymer such as poly(arylene ether) or
polysulfones and a crosslinking compound having formula (II) having hydroxyl substituent in [0019-0023], examples and claims meeting the instant claims 1, 3-8, 11 and 12. CA teaches polyarylene ether having the recited structure of claim 4 and equates various aromatic polymers taught by WO and the polyarylene ether in [0020].
CA teaches that a wt.% ratio of the polymer and the combined weight of the
cross-linking compound and the cross-linking compound is 3:1 to 10:1 in [0076] and an
amount of the polymer being 50-99 wt.% in [0080] meeting claims 14-15.
CA teaches a cross-linking reaction additive such as lithium acetate hydrate in
[0024] and a wt.% ratio of the cross-linking compound and the cross-linking reaction
additive being 20:1 to 1000:1 in [0025] and claim 17 meeting claims 16-18.
The recited lithium acetate (i.e., acetic acid lithium salt) of claim 18 would be also
known as lithium acetate (di)hydrate (synonym) in the art.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of invention
further to utilize the art known polyarylene ether, crosslinking compound having formula (II), cross-linking reaction additive such as lithium acetate hydrate and wt.% ratio and amount of the polymer and cross-linking compound taught by CA (or US) in WO since CA teaches and equates various aromatic polymers taught by WO and the polyarylene ether and since WO teaches that the crosslinker comprises hydroxyl group in [0046] and since utilization of a cure inhibitor (i.e., lithium acetate hydrate) in order to prevent a pre-mature of the crosslinkable composition during storage is well known as taught CA and since the instantly recited wt.% ratio and amount of the polymer and cross-linking compound are also well known as taught by CA absent showing otherwise.
Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima
facie obvious, see Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ
297 (1945). MPEP 2144.07.
The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). MPEP 2141.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/161120 A1 (Sep. 21, 2017) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 14-17, 20, 21, 26-28, 37 and 40-42 above, and further in view of KR 20080005426 A (Jan. 11, 2008) or CA 2029979 A1 (May 17, 1991).
Regarding claim 19, utilization of a co-curing agent/accelerator such as magnesium chloride in order to increase curing rate for polymers is known in the art as taught by KR (lines 1-10 of page 8) and CA’979 (lines 13-20 of page 11).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of invention
further to utilize the art known co-curing agent/accelerator such as magnesium chloride taught by KR or CA’979 on WP in order to increase curing rate of the aromatic polymer taught by CA’858 absent showing otherwise.
Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima
facie obvious, see Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ
297 (1945). MPEP 2144.07.
The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). MPEP 2141.
CLAIM OBJECTION
Claims 9 and 10 are 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE H YOON whose telephone number is (571)272-1128. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571)270-7733. 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.
/TAE H YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762