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
In view of the amendment filed 06/20/2025:
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 16-23, and 25-33 are pending.
Claims 4, 6, 8-15, and 24 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 30 is a duplicate of claim 21, which recites “The method of claim 5, wherein T is selected from the group consisting of -S02- and - C(CH3)2-“.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 16, 20, 21, 25-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sybert et al. (US20190193336), and further in view of Weinberg (US20130296474).
Regarding claim 1, Sybert teaches a method for manufacturing a three-dimensional (3D) object with an additive manufacturing system, the method comprising:
a step comprising printing layers of the three-dimensional object from a part material ([0094]) comprising:
- at least one poly(aryl ether sulfone) (PAES) polymer ([0094] Aspect 1. A method, comprising: with an additive manufacturing process (including but not limited to a fused deposition process and a fused filament fabrication process), forming a workpiece that comprises a build portion comprising… polyphenylene ether sulfone);
- at least one per(halo)fluoropolymer (FP) such as fibular PTFE ([0076] Melt strength and low shear viscosity to reduce drooling in HALS high Tg PC blends can also be increased, for example, by addition on multifunctional epoxides such as Novolac™, BPA or bis cycloaliphatic epoxides. Fluoropolymers, such as fibular PTFE, can also be used to enhance melt strength)
- at least one additive selected from the group consisting of fillers, colorants, plasticizers, flame retardants, nucleating agents and stabilizers ([0079] The polymer compositions of the disclosure may also comprise additives, as desired. Exemplary additives include: one or more polymers, heat stabilizers, anti-drip agents, pigments, dyes, fibers, fillers, plasticizers, fibers, flame retardants, antioxidants, lubricants, glass, and metals, and combinations thereof).
However, Sybert fails to teach the part material consists of:
- at least 60 wt% of the poly(aryl ether sulfone) (PAES) polymer;
- the at least one per(halo)fluoropolymer (FP) having a melt viscosity of at most 1.5x103 Pa.s, as measured according to ASTM D3835 at 372 °C and 1000 s-1 using a die of 1 mm x 10 mm;
- from 0 to 30 wt.% of the at least one additive, the proportions given in wt% being based on the total weight of the part material, and
wherein the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) has at least 98 mol.% of recurring units derived from tetrafluoroethylene (TFE), based on the total number of moles in the FP.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to melt-processable compositions for manufacturing ([0122] The polymer composition (C) is advantageously prepared by any conventional mixing method. A preferred method comprises dry mixing the ingredients of polymer composition (C) in powder or granular form, using e.g. a mechanical blender, then extruding the mixture into strands and chopping the strands into pellets), Weinberg teaches a melt-processable composition consisting of:
94.75 wt% of one poly(aryl ether sulfone) (PAES) polymer (RADEL R-5100 NT as discussed in [0140]-[0141] and in example CE1 as shown under Table 1 on pg. 10),
at least one per(halo)fluoropolymer (FP) wherein the per(halo)fluoropolymer (FP) is a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) ([0100] ALGOFLON.RTM. L 206 and L 203 PTFE and POLYMIST.RTM. non fibrillating polytetrafluoroethylenes, available from Solvay Solexis, S.p.A., are especially suitable for use as the polytetrafluoroethylene (P4); see Polymist F5A and HYFLON MFA 840 in example CE1 as shown under Table 1 on pg. 10) having at least 98 mol.% of recurring units derived from tetrafluoroethylene (TFE), based on the total number of moles in the FP ([0088] For the purpose of the present invention, a polytetrafluoroethylene is intended to denote any per(halo)fluoropolymer (as above defined) of which more than 98.0 wt. % of the recurring units are derived from tetrafluoroethylene. Preferably more than 98.5 wt. %, more preferably more than 99.0 wt. % and still more preferably more than 99.5 wt. % of the recurring units of the polytetrafluoroethylene (P4) may be derived from tetrafluoroethylene. [0089] In a certain embodiment, to which the preference may be given, essentially all the recurring units (or even, all the recurring units) of the polytetrafluoroethylene (P4) are derived from tetrafluoroethylene; the polytetrafluoroethylene (P4) may then be qualified as a "homopolymer", and [0100] ALGOFLON.RTM. L 206 and L 203 PTFE and POLYMIST.RTM. non fibrillating polytetrafluoroethylenes, available from Solvay Solexis, S.p.A., are especially suitable for use as the polytetrafluoroethylene (P4); Applicant’s disclosure noted in [00116] “According to an embodiment, all the recurring units of the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) derive from tetrafluoroethylene (TFE); the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) may then be qualified as a "homopolymer"” such that Weinberg’s teachings of a homopolymer or copolymer with 98.0% of recurring units derived from tetrafluoroethylene satisfies the limitation);
4.25 wt% of at least one additive (see Kadox 911 Zinc Oxide and Kemire TiO2 in example CE1 as shown under Table 1 on pg. 10).
Weinberg teaches the at least one per(halo)fluoropolymer (FP) has a melt viscosity below 104 Pa.s ([0093]), and more specifically between 10-700 Pa.s ([0087] The per(halo)fluoropolymer (P3) may have a dynamic viscosity at a shear rate of 1 s.sup.-1 as measured in the above specified conditions between 10 and 2 000 Pas, in particular between 10 and 700 Pas) as measured according ASTM D1239-52T at 372 °C at a shear rate of 1 s-1 ([0093]).
While Weinberg fails to explicitly teach the at least one per(halo)fluoropolymer (FP) melt viscosity is measured according to ASTM D3835 at a shear rate of 1000 s-1 using a die of 1 mm x 10 mm, the melt-processable composition melt viscosity is measured in accordance with ASTM D3835 at shear rates ranging from 23.2 s-1 to 3513 s-1 using a die of 1.02 mm x 20.32 mm ([0156] and see various melt viscosities at shear rates under Table 1 on pg. 11 ), such that one of ordinary skill would look to ASTM D3835 as an alternative method for measuring the melt viscosity of the per(halo)fluoropolymer (FP) component of the composition at varying shear rates, including a shear rate of 1,000 s-1, which is relevant for conditions to process high flow materials ([0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the at least one per(halo)fluoropolymer (FP) melt viscosity be measured in accordance with ASTM D3835 at a shear rate of 1000 s-1 using a die of 1 mm x 10 mm, to achieve the predictable result of determining a melt viscosity in a range relevant to conditions for processing high flow materials. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success for the per(halo)fluoropolymer (FP) melt viscosity to be determined in accordance with ASTM D3835 at a shear rate of 1000 s-1 using a die of 1 mm x 10 mm, since the viscosity of the melt processable composition including the per(halo)fluoropolymer (FP) is determined in accordance with ASTM D3835 at shear rates ranging from 23.2 s-1 to 3513 s-1. Further, one of ordinary skill would expect the per(halo)fluoropolymer (FP) melt viscosity to not exceed 1.5 x 103 at a higher shear rate of 1,000 s-1, since Weinberg teaches a melt viscosity of specifically between 10-700 Pa.s at a shear rate of 1 s-1, and the melt viscosity value decreases with increasing shear rate, as evidenced by the decreasing melt viscosities with increasing shear rates at the bottom of Table 1 on pg. 11 (attributed to the shear thinning phenomenon where non-Newtonian fluids such as polymer solutions have a decreasing viscosity under shear strain).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the melt-processable composition of Weinberg in the three-dimensional (3D) object manufacturing method of Sybert, for the benefit of producing components with high fire resistance, high stiffness and high toughness (see [0008] of Weinberg).
Regarding claim 2, Sybert modified with Weinberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Sybert teaches wherein the step of printing layers further comprises extruding the part material ([0008] with an additive manufacturing process, forming a workpiece that comprises [0009] a build portion comprising polyetherimide, polyetherimide sulfone, polyimide, polysulfone, polyether sulfone, polyphenylene ether sulfone, polyphenylene ether, imidized polymethacrylate, blends thereof, or any combination thereof, and [0027] While in the presence of steam, the HALS additive readily degrades the high Tg PC, but the HALS additives do not substantially disturb the high heat PC melt stability and allow high temperature (> about 250° C.) melt processing to make the HALS blend, extrude the HALS containing PC filament and then make the support structure).
Regarding claim 3, Sybert modified with Weinberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Sybert teaches wherein the part material is in the form of a filament having a cylindrical geometry and a diameter comprised between 0.1 and 5.0 mm ([0110]).
Claim 16. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, wherein the part material comprises at least 60 wt.% and less than 99.5 wt.% of the at least one PAES based on the total weight of the part material.
Regarding claim 5, Sybert modified with Weinberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Weinberg teaches wherein the PAES polymer comprising at least 50 mol.% of recurring units (RPAES) of formula (K), based on the total number of moles in the PAES ([0030]):
See single example shown in annotated [0028] where in formula K below, h= 0 and T is the group -SO2-.
PNG
media_image1.png
140
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
300
426
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The PAES polymer of Weinberg provides both extremely high toughness and high flowability ([0020]-[0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the melt-processable composition containing the PAES polymer of Weinberg in the three-dimensional (3D) object manufacturing method of Sybert, for the benefit of producing components with high fire resistance, high stiffness and high toughness (see [0008] of Weinberg).
Regarding claim 7, Sybert modified with Weinberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Further Weinberg teaches wherein the PAES is a poly(biphenyl ether sulfone) (PPSU) ([0022]). Poly(biphenyl ether sulfone)s offer high stiffness, toughness, fire resistance, and flowability ([0005] Among engineering polymers, poly(biphenyl ether sulfone)s, especially polyphenylsulfones, offer as such a rather attractive combination of properties, especially high stiffness, high toughness, and also a rather high fire resistance and a rather high flowability).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the melt-processable composition containing the poly(biphenyl ether sulfone) polymers of Weinberg in the three-dimensional (3D) object manufacturing method of Sybert, for the benefit of producing components with high fire resistance, high stiffness and high toughness.
Regarding claim 16, Sybert modified with Weinberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Weinberg teaches wherein the part material comprises at least 50 wt.% of the at least one PAES based on the total weight of the part material ([0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the melt-processable composition containing at least 50 wt.% of the at least one PAES based on the total weight of the part material of Weinberg in the three-dimensional (3D) object manufacturing method of Sybert, for the benefit of producing components with high fire resistance, high stiffness and high toughness.
Regarding claim 20, Sybert modified with Weinberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Sybert teaches wherein the part material is in the form of a filament having a cylindrical geometry and a diameter comprised between 0.1 and 5 mm ([0110]).
Regarding claims 21 and 30, Sybert modified with Weinberg teaches the method of claim 5.
Further, Weinberg teaches wherein T is the bond -SO2- (see annotated [0028] below).
PNG
media_image2.png
300
426
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, Sybert modified with Weinberg teaches the method of claim 1. Further, Weinberg teaches wherein the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) comprises at least 99 mol.% of recurring units derived from tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) ([0089] In a certain embodiment, to which the preference may be given, essentially all the recurring units (or even, all the recurring units) of the polytetrafluoroethylene (P4) are derived from tetrafluoroethylene; the polytetrafluoroethylene (P4) may then be qualified as a "homopolymer", and [0100] ALGOFLON.RTM. L 206 and L 203 PTFE and POLYMIST.RTM. non fibrillating polytetrafluoroethylenes, available from Solvay Solexis, S.p.A., are especially suitable for use as the polytetrafluoroethylene (P4); Applicant’s disclosure noted in [00116] “According to an embodiment, all the recurring units of the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) derive from tetrafluoroethylene (TFE); the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) may then be qualified as a "homopolymer” such that Weinberg’s teachings of a homopolymer or copolymer at least 99 mol.% of recurring units derived from tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) satisfies the limitation).
Regarding claim 26, Sybert modified with Weinberg teaches the method of claim 24 claim 1.
Further, Weinberg teaches wherein all the recurring units of the PTFE derive from tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) ([0089] In a certain embodiment, to which the preference may be given, essentially all the recurring units (or even, all the recurring units) of the polytetrafluoroethylene (P4) are derived from tetrafluoroethylene; the polytetrafluoroethylene (P4) may then be qualified as a "homopolymer", and [0100] ALGOFLON.RTM. L 206 and L 203 PTFE and POLYMIST.RTM. non fibrillating polytetrafluoroethylenes, available from Solvay Solexis, S.p.A., are especially suitable for use as the polytetrafluoroethylene (P4); Applicant’s disclosure noted in [00116] “According to an embodiment, all the recurring units of the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) derive from tetrafluoroethylene (TFE); the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) may then be qualified as a "homopolymer" such that Weinberg’s teachings of a homopolymer derived from tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) satisfies the limitation).
Regarding claim 27, Sybert modified with Weinberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Weinberg teaches wherein the per(halo)fluoropolymer (FP) has a particle size d50 less than 100 µm, preferably less than 20 µm ([0097]).
Regarding claim 28, Sybert modified with Weinberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Weinberg teaches wherein per(halo)fluoropolymer (FP) is in an amount of 0.1 wt% to 12 wt%, based on the total weight of polymeric component of the material ([0059]).
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 20, 21, 25-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sybert et al. (US20190193336), and further in view of Kelly et al. (US5204400) and Weinberg (US20130296474).
Regarding claim 1, Sybert teaches a method for manufacturing a three-dimensional (3D) object with an additive manufacturing system, the method comprising:
a step comprising printing layers of the three-dimensional object from a part material ([0094]) comprising:
- at least one poly(aryl ether sulfone) (PAES) polymer ([0094] Aspect 1. A method, comprising: with an additive manufacturing process (including but not limited to a fused deposition process and a fused filament fabrication process), forming a workpiece that comprises a build portion comprising… polyphenylene ether sulfone);
- at least one per(halo)fluoropolymer (FP) such as fibular PTFE ([0076] Melt strength and low shear viscosity to reduce drooling in HALS high Tg PC blends can also be increased, for example, by addition on multifunctional epoxides such as Novolac™, BPA or bis cycloaliphatic epoxides. Fluoropolymers, such as fibular PTFE, can also be used to enhance melt strength)
- at least one additive selected from the group consisting of fillers, colorants, plasticizers, flame retardants, nucleating agents and stabilizers ([0079] The polymer compositions of the disclosure may also comprise additives, as desired. Exemplary additives include: one or more polymers, heat stabilizers, anti-drip agents, pigments, dyes, fibers, fillers, plasticizers, fibers, flame retardants, antioxidants, lubricants, glass, and metals, and combinations thereof).
However, Sybert fails to teach the part material consists of:
- at least 60 wt% of the poly(aryl ether sulfone) (PAES) polymer;
- the at least one per(halo)fluoropolymer (FP) having a melt viscosity of at most 1.5x103 Pa.s, as measured according to ASTM D3835 at 372 °C and 1000 s-1 using a die of 1 mm x 10 mm;
- from 0 to 30 wt.% of the at least one additive, the proportions given in wt% being based on the total weight of the part material, and
wherein the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) has at least 98 mol.% of recurring units derived from tetrafluoroethylene (TFE), based on the total number of moles in the FP.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to melt-processable compositions for manufacturing (col 3 line 43-49), Kelly teaches a melt processable composition consisting of:
100 wt% of a poly(biphenyl ether sulfone) (col 21 line 1-12 and Examples 23-29 under Table 2);
1-2 wt% of a per(halo)fluoropolymer (FP) (see Polymist F5A for Examples 23-21 under Table 2 under col 21);
4 to 15 wt% of ZnB and TiO-2 additive (see Examples 23-21 under Table 2 under col 21).
Synergistic effects of the PTFE and zinc borate additive is much greater in a biphenyl poly(aryl ether sulfone) than in a blend of a sulfone and a polyketone (col 21 line 50-54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the melt-processable composition of Kelly in the three-dimensional (3D) object manufacturing method of Sybert, for the benefit of using poly(biphenyl ether sulfone) in amounts that increase the synergistic effects of the PTFE and additives.
Further, in the same field of endeavor pertaining to melt-processable compositions for manufacturing ([0122] The polymer composition (C) is advantageously prepared by any conventional mixing method. A preferred method comprises dry mixing the ingredients of polymer composition (C) in powder or granular form, using e.g. a mechanical blender, then extruding the mixture into strands and chopping the strands into pellets), Weinberg teaches
at least one per(halo)fluoropolymer (FP) wherein the per(halo)fluoropolymer (FP) is a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), specifically Polymist F5A ([0100] ALGOFLON.RTM. L 206 and L 203 PTFE and POLYMIST.RTM. non fibrillating polytetrafluoroethylenes, available from Solvay Solexis, S.p.A., are especially suitable for use as the polytetrafluoroethylene (P4); see Polymist F5A and HYFLON MFA 840 in example CE1 as shown under Table 1 on pg. 10) having at least 98 mol.% of recurring units derived from tetrafluoroethylene (TFE), based on the total number of moles in the FP ([0088] For the purpose of the present invention, a polytetrafluoroethylene is intended to denote any per(halo)fluoropolymer (as above defined) of which more than 98.0 wt. % of the recurring units are derived from tetrafluoroethylene. Preferably more than 98.5 wt. %, more preferably more than 99.0 wt. % and still more preferably more than 99.5 wt. % of the recurring units of the polytetrafluoroethylene (P4) may be derived from tetrafluoroethylene. [0089] In a certain embodiment, to which the preference may be given, essentially all the recurring units (or even, all the recurring units) of the polytetrafluoroethylene (P4) are derived from tetrafluoroethylene; the polytetrafluoroethylene (P4) may then be qualified as a "homopolymer", and [0100] ALGOFLON.RTM. L 206 and L 203 PTFE and POLYMIST.RTM. non fibrillating polytetrafluoroethylenes, available from Solvay Solexis, S.p.A., are especially suitable for use as the polytetrafluoroethylene (P4); Applicant’s disclosure noted in [00116] “According to an embodiment, all the recurring units of the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) derive from tetrafluoroethylene (TFE); the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) may then be qualified as a "homopolymer"” such that Weinberg’s teachings of a homopolymer or copolymer with 98.0% of recurring units derived from tetrafluoroethylene satisfies the limitation);
the at least one per(halo)fluoropolymer (FP) has a melt viscosity below 104 Pa.s ([0093]), and more specifically between 10-700 Pa.s ([0087] The per(halo)fluoropolymer (P3) may have a dynamic viscosity at a shear rate of 1 s.sup.-1 as measured in the above specified conditions between 10 and 2 000 Pas, in particular between 10 and 700 Pas) as measured according ASTM D1239-52T at 372 °C at a shear rate of 1 s-1 ([0093]).
Further, the melt-processable composition melt viscosity is measured in accordance with ASTM D3835 at shear rates ranging from 23.2 s-1 to 3513 s-1 using a die of 1.02 mm x 20.32 mm ([0156] and see various melt viscosities at shear rates under Table 1 on pg. 11).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the per(halo)fluoropolymer (FP) of Syberg modified with Kelly to have at least at least 98 mol.% of recurring units derived from tetrafluoroethylene (TFE), based on the total number of moles in the FP, as taught by Weinberg, since both Kelly and Weinberg teach the per(halo)fluoropolymer (FP) is Polymist F5A.
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the at least one per(halo)fluoropolymer (FP) melt viscosity be measured in accordance with ASTM D3835 at a shear rate of 1000 s-1 using a die of 1 mm x 10 mm, to achieve the predictable result of determining a melt viscosity in a range relevant to conditions for processing high flow materials (see [0003] of Weinberg). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success for the per(halo)fluoropolymer (FP) melt viscosity to be determined in accordance with ASTM D3835 at a shear rate of 1000 s-1 using a die of 1 mm x 10 mm, since the viscosity of the melt processable composition including the per(halo)fluoropolymer (FP) is determined in accordance with ASTM D3835 at shear rates ranging from 23.2 s-1 to 3513 s-1. Further, one of ordinary skill would expect the per(halo)fluoropolymer (FP) melt viscosity to not exceed 1.5 x 103 at a higher shear rate of 1,000 s-1, since Weinberg teaches a melt viscosity of specifically between 10-700 Pa.s at a shear rate of 1 s-1, and the melt viscosity value decreases with increasing shear rate, as evidenced by the decreasing melt viscosities with increasing shear rates at the bottom of Table 1 on pg. 11 (attributed to the shear thinning phenomenon where non-Newtonian fluids such as polymer solutions have a decreasing viscosity under shear strain).
Regarding claim 2, Sybert modified with Kelly and Weinberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Sybert teaches wherein the step of printing layers further comprises extruding the part material ([0008] with an additive manufacturing process, forming a workpiece that comprises [0009] a build portion comprising polyetherimide, polyetherimide sulfone, polyimide, polysulfone, polyether sulfone, polyphenylene ether sulfone, polyphenylene ether, imidized polymethacrylate, blends thereof, or any combination thereof, and [0027] While in the presence of steam, the HALS additive readily degrades the high Tg PC, but the HALS additives do not substantially disturb the high heat PC melt stability and allow high temperature (> about 250° C.) melt processing to make the HALS blend, extrude the HALS containing PC filament and then make the support structure).
Regarding claim 3, Sybert modified with Kelly and Weinberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Sybert teaches wherein the part material is in the form of a filament having a cylindrical geometry and a diameter comprised between 0.1 and 5.0 mm ([0110]).
Claim 16. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, wherein the part material comprises at least 60 wt.% and less than 99.5 wt.% of the at least one PAES based on the total weight of the part material.
Regarding claim 5, Sybert modified with Kelly and Weinberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Kelly teaches wherein the PAES polymer comprising at least 50 mol.% of recurring units (RPAES) of formula (K), based on the total number of moles in the PAES ([0030]):
See single example shown in annotated [0028] where in formula K below, h= 0 and T is the group -SO2- (see col 14 line 50-60 where at least 50 mole percent is the divalent Ar’ groups are bisphenol S moieties and the remainder of 0 to 50 mole percent is A moieties such that 100 mol percent can be the S moieties and 0 mole percent is the A moieties). The PAES polymer of Kelly exhibits compositions for molding with improved heat release properties, excellent mechanical properties and chemical resistance, and low flammability (col 3 line 36-68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the melt-processable composition containing the PAES polymer of Kelly modified with Weinberg in the three-dimensional (3D) object manufacturing method of Sybert, for the benefit of producing components with improved heat release properties, excellent mechanical properties and chemical resistance, and low flammability.
PNG
media_image1.png
140
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
712
439
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Sybert modified with Kelly and Weinberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Kelly teaches wherein the PAES is a poly(biphenyl ether sulfone) (PPSU) (Abstract: Flame retardant polyarylether compositions comprising a poly(biphenyl ether sulfone)). Poly(biphenyl ether sulfone)s offer high stiffness, toughness, fire resistance, and flowability ([0005] Among engineering polymers, poly(biphenyl ether sulfone)s, especially polyphenylsulfones, offer as such a rather attractive combination of properties, especially high stiffness, high toughness, and also a rather high fire resistance and a rather high flowability).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the melt-processable composition containing the poly(biphenyl ether sulfone) polymers of Kelly modified with Weinberg in the three-dimensional (3D) object manufacturing method of Sybert, for the benefit of producing components with improved heat release properties, excellent mechanical properties and chemical resistance, and low flammability.
Regarding claim 20, Sybert modified with Kelly and Weinberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Sybert teaches wherein the part material is in the form of a filament having a cylindrical geometry and a diameter comprised between 0.1 and 5 mm ([0110]).
Regarding claims 21 and 30, Sybert modified with Kelly and Weinberg teaches the method of claim 5.
Further, Kelly teachers wherein T is the bond -SO2- (see annotated Figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
712
439
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, Sybert modified with Kelly and Weinberg teaches the method of claim 1. Further, Weinberg teaches wherein the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) comprises at least 99 mol.% of recurring units derived from tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) ([0089] In a certain embodiment, to which the preference may be given, essentially all the recurring units (or even, all the recurring units) of the polytetrafluoroethylene (P4) are derived from tetrafluoroethylene; the polytetrafluoroethylene (P4) may then be qualified as a "homopolymer", and [0100] ALGOFLON.RTM. L 206 and L 203 PTFE and POLYMIST.RTM. non fibrillating polytetrafluoroethylenes, available from Solvay Solexis, S.p.A., are especially suitable for use as the polytetrafluoroethylene (P4); Applicant’s disclosure noted in [00116] “According to an embodiment, all the recurring units of the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) derive from tetrafluoroethylene (TFE); the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) may then be qualified as a "homopolymer” such that Weinberg’s teachings of a homopolymer or copolymer at least 99 mol.% of recurring units derived from tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) satisfies the limitation).
Regarding claim 26, Sybert modified with Kelly and Weinberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Weinberg teaches wherein all the recurring units of the PTFE derive from tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) ([0089] In a certain embodiment, to which the preference may be given, essentially all the recurring units (or even, all the recurring units) of the polytetrafluoroethylene (P4) are derived from tetrafluoroethylene; the polytetrafluoroethylene (P4) may then be qualified as a "homopolymer", and [0100] ALGOFLON.RTM. L 206 and L 203 PTFE and POLYMIST.RTM. non fibrillating polytetrafluoroethylenes, available from Solvay Solexis, S.p.A., are especially suitable for use as the polytetrafluoroethylene (P4); Applicant’s disclosure noted in [00116] “According to an embodiment, all the recurring units of the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) derive from tetrafluoroethylene (TFE); the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) may then be qualified as a "homopolymer" such that Weinberg’s teachings of a homopolymer derived from tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) satisfies the limitation).
Regarding claim 27, Sybert modified with Kelly and Weinberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Kelly teaches wherein the per(halo)fluoropolymer (FP) has a particle size d50 less than 5 µm, because such solids are more easily dispersed and result in better impact properties (col 16 line 21-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the per(halo)fluoropolymer (FP) of Sybert modified with Kelly and Weinberg have a particle size less than 5 µm, as taught by Kelly, for the benefit of more easily dispersing the particles which results in better impact properties.
Regarding claim 28, Sybert modified with Kelly and Weinberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Weinberg teaches wherein per(halo)fluoropolymer (FP) is in an amount of 0wt% to 2 wt%, based on the total weight of polymeric component of the material (see Examples 23-31 under Table 2 under col. 21).
Claim(s) 17-19, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sybert et al. (US20190193336), Kelly et al. (US5204400), and Weinberg (US20130296474), and further in view of Savariar (US6228970).
Regarding claims 17-19, Sybert modified with Kelly and Weinberg teaches the method of claim 7.
However, Sybert fails to teach wherein the part material comprises at least one PPSU which has:
- a number average molecular weight (Mn) of at least 12,000 g/mol, and
- a PDI of less than 1.5.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to poly (biphenyl ether sulfones) molding compositions (col 1 line 48-62), Savariar teaches wherein the PPSU comprises
a number average molecular weight (Mn) of about 16,000 to about 25,000 (col 4 line 27-30), and
a PDI less then 14.1 x 10-6 (col 4 line 19-23).
The poly (biphenyl ether sulfones) of Savariar have improved polydispersity and low levels of low molecular weight oligomer (see Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the PSSU of Sybert modified with Kelly and Weinberg with the PSSU of Savariar, for the benefit of utilizing PSSUs with improved polydispersity and low levels of low molecular weight oligomer.
Regarding claim 22, Sybert modified with Kelly and Weinberg teaches the method of claim 7. However, Sybert, Kelly, and Weinberg fail to teach wherein the PPSU comprises at least 50 mol% of recurring units of formula (L"):(L")
PNG
media_image4.png
235
1430
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to poly (biphenyl ether sulfones) molding compositions (col 1 line 48-62), Savariar teaches wherein the PPSU comprises at least 50 mol% (the repeating units below do not have a copolymer and are therefore 100 mol% of the repeating unit) of
PNG
media_image5.png
120
328
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(see claim 1 under col 12). The poly (biphenyl ether sulfones) of Savariar have improved polydispersity and low levels of low molecular weight oligomer (see Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the PSSU of Sybert modified with Kelly and Weinberg with the PSSU of Savariar, for the benefit of utilizing PSSUs with improved polydispersity and low levels of low molecular weight oligomer.
Regarding claim 23, Sybert modified with Kelly, Weinberg, and Savariar teaches the method of claim 22.
Further, the repeating units shown in the rejection of claim 22 do not appear to be a copolymer and, therefore comprise 100 mol% of the recurring units.
Claim(s) 5, 21, and 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sybert et al. (US20190193336), Kelly et al. (US5204400), and Weinberg (US20130296474), and further in view of Taylor et al. (US20150299395).
Regarding claim 5, Sybert modified with Kelly and Weinberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Kelly teaches wherein T is the bond -SO2- (see rejection of claim 5 and 21 above), but fails to teach formula (K) with other T bonds or h for each R being an integer from 1 to 4.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to poly (biphenyl ether sulfones) molding compositions ([0127]), Taylor teaches formula (K) with T selected from the bonds —CH.sub.2—, —C(O)—, —C(CH.sub.3).sub.2—, —C(CF.sub.3).sub.2—, —C(═CCl.sub.2)—, -C(CH.sub.3)(CH.sub.2CH.sub.2COOH)—, —SO.sub.2— ([0103]). Further, Taylor teaches each R’ is equal to or different from each other and selected from halogen, alkyl, alkenyl, alkynyl, aryl, ether, thioether, carboxylic acid, ester, amide, imide, alkali or alkaline earth metal sulfonate, alkyl sulfonate, alkali or alkaline earth metal phosphonate, alkyl phosphonate, amine and quaternary ammonium where R is 0 to 4 ([0101]). The PAES polymers of Taylor are derived from bio-compatible and bi-based raw materials ([0011]) while possessing excellent thermal stability, high stiffness and strength, good toughness and attractive impact properties).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the PAES of Sybert modified with Kelly and Weinberg with the PAES of Taylor, for the benefit of forming polymers derived from bio-compatible and bio-based raw materials.
Regarding claims 21 and 30, Sybert modified with Kelly, Weinberg, and Taylor teaches the method of claim 5.
Further, Taylor teaches where T is selected from the bond —C(CH.sub.3).sub.2— and —SO.sub.2— ([0103]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the PAES of Sybert modified with Kelly and Weinberg with the PAES of Taylor, for the benefit of forming polymers derived from bio-compatible and bio-based raw materials.
Regarding claim 31, Sybert modified with Kelly, Weinberg, and Taylor teaches the method of claim 5.
Further, Taylor wherein T is selected from -CH2- and -0- ([0103]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the PAES of Sybert modified with Kelly and Weinberg with the PAES of Taylor, for the benefit of forming polymers derived from bio-compatible and bio-based raw materials.
Regarding claim 32, Sybert modified with Kelly, Weinberg, and Taylor teaches the method of claim 5.
Further, Taylor teaches wherein T is -C(O)- ([0103]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the PAES of Sybert modified with Kelly and Weinberg with the PAES of Taylor, for the benefit of forming polymers derived from bio-compatible and bio-based raw materials.
Regarding claim 33, Sybert modified with Kelly, Weinberg, and Taylor teaches the method of claim 5.
Further, Taylor teaches wherein T is selected from a group -C(Rj)(Rk)-, where Rj and Rk,equal to or different from each other, are selected from a halogen, an alkyl, an alkenyl, an alkynyl, an ether, a thioether, a carboxylic acid, an ester, an amide, an imide, an alkali or alkaline earth metal sulfonate, an alkyl sulfonate, an alkali or alkaline earth metal phosphonate, an alkyl phosphonate, an amine, and a quaternary ammonium ([0101]).
Further, Taylor does not teach each of R’ is hydrogen such that at least one of Rj and Rk is not a hydrogen.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the PAES of Sybert modified with Kelly and Weinberg with the PAES of Taylor, for the benefit of forming polymers derived from bio-compatible and bio-based raw materials.
Claim(s) 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sybert et al. (US20190193336), Kelly et al. (US5204400), and Weinberg (US20130296474), and further in view of Colaianna et al. (US20170107305).
Regarding claim 29, Sybert modified with Kelly and Weinberg teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Sybert fails to teach wherein per(halo)fluoropolymer (FP) comprises end-groups in an amount of from 13 mmol/kg to 50 mmol/kg of the per(halo)fluoropolymer (FP).
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to melt-processable compositions containing perfluoropolymers, Colaianna teaches a melt-processible perfluoropolymer with reactive end groups in an amount of at least 4.5 mmol/kg (see Abstract and P450 with a total reactive end group of 13.6 mmol/kg under Table 4 on pg. 5). The reactive end groups allow for reactions that are not better defined and that can improve the overall perfluoropolymer performance ([0012]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the perfluoropolymer of Sybert modified with Kelly and Weinberg to comprise end-groups in an amount of 13 mmol/kg, as taught by Colaianna, for the benefit of having reactive end group reactions that can improve the overall perfluoropolymer performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Weinberg teaches that the per(halo)fluoropolymers, i.e. PTFE, are in combination with at least another fluoropolymer, such that Weinberg teaches that the composition includes at least one component that is excluded from the present claims (see pg. 8 of Remarks). However, Weinberg teaches in comparative example 1 (CE1) a single poly(aryl ether sulfone) (PAES) polymer (RADEL R-5100 NT) and one per(halo)fluoropolymer (FP) (Polymist F5A PTFE) as shown in Table 1 on pg. 10.
Further, Examiner notes that claim 1 currently recites for “at least one per(halo)fluoropolymer (FP)” such that the teachings of more than one per(halo)fluoropolymer (FP) would fulfill the limitation of claim 1.
Applicant argues that one skilled in the art seeking to minimize the composition viscosity - as evidenced by the claim 1 limitation of "having a viscosity of less than 1.5*103 Pa-sec" - would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in following Weinberg's CE1to modify Sybert to arrive at the presently claimed method, since Weingberg states that the composition of CE1 has too high of a viscosity (see pg. 9 of Remarks).
However, claim 1 does not explicitly require the method to additively manufacture “thin wall compartments such as aircraft”, and there is no teaching or suggestion by Weinberg that the composition would be unsuitable for use in any additive manufacturing environment. Further, comparative example 1 (CE1) of Weinberg satisfies the limitation of having a viscosity of less than 1.5 x 103 Pa-sec, as noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, such that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in utilizing Weinber’s CE1 melt-processable composition in the additive manufacturing method of Sybert.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLA MACHNESS whose telephone number is (408)918-7587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:30-2:30 PT.
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 at 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.
/ARIELLA MACHNESS/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights