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 .
The amendment filed August 20, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are under examination.
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 5 and 8-9 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 5 recites the limitation "the molar substitution." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the weight average molecular weight of the at least one vinyl pyrrolidone polymer." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the ratio." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayer (US 2016/0333165) in view of Klucel (“Klucel hydroxypropylcellulose – Physical and chemical properties”, Ashland Inc., 2017).
Claim 1: Bayer discloses a support material for three-dimensional printing (abstract). The material includes a blend of a hydroxypropyl cellulose (HPC) and at least one cellulose ether other than hydroxypropyl cellulose (HPMC) (¶¶ 14-15). Bayer is silent as to the molecular weight of the HPC. However, Bayer teaches “Exemplary HPCs include those available from Ashland Inc., KY under the tradename KLUCEL.” (¶ 14). As taught by Klucel, HPCs sold by Ashland have molecular weights ranging from 40,000 Daltons to 1,150,000 Daltons (Table 2), which is within the claimed range, and are useful for forming granules (p. 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have utilized the HPCs of Klucel in the support material of Bayer because Bayer explicitly teaches that these HPCs are exemplary HPCs to utilize.
Claim 2: Bayer discloses the blend includes hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose (¶ 14).
Claim 5: Klucel discloses a molar substitution of the HPC is 2.5 (p. 4; fig. 1).
Claims 1-2, 5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayer (US 2016/0333165) in view of Klucel (“Klucel hydroxypropylcellulose – Physical and chemical properties”, Ashland Inc., 2017) and Demuth (US 2018/0370121).
Claim 1: Bayer discloses a support material for three-dimensional printing (abstract). The material includes a blend of a hydroxypropyl cellulose (HPC) and at least one vinyl polymer (¶¶ 14-15). Bayer is silent as to the molecular weight of the HPC. However, Bayer teaches “Exemplary HPCs include those available from Ashland Inc., KY under the tradename KLUCEL.” (¶ 14). As taught by Klucel, HPCs sold by Ashland have molecular weights ranging from 40,000 Daltons to 1,150,000 Daltons (Table 2), which is within the claimed range, and are useful for forming granules (p. 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have utilized the HPCs of Klucel in the support material of Bayer because Bayer explicitly teaches that these HPCs are exemplary HPCs to utilize.
Bayer is also silent as to the vinyl polymer being vinyl pyrrolidone polymer. However, in the same field of endeavor, Demuth discloses a support material for three-dimensional printing including vinyl pyrrolidone polymer (¶ 47), wherein the support material is in granulate form (¶¶ 120-121, 137-139). As taught by Demuth, including vinyl pyrrolidone polymer in the support material “provides improved toughness and thermal stability along with improved dissolution rates in water and/or other aqueous solutions or dispersions.” (¶ 47). 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 the vinyl pyrrolidone polymer of Demuth in the support material of Bayer to improve toughness and thermal stability along with improved dissolution rates in water and/or other aqueous solutions or dispersions.
Claim 2: Bayer discloses the blend includes hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose (¶ 14).
Claim 5: Klucel discloses a molar substitution of the HPC is 2.5 (p. 4; fig. 1).
Claim 7: Demuth discloses the material including PVP (¶ 47).
Claim 8: Demuth discloses the vinyl pyrrolidone polymer of the first blend being 40,000 Daltons (¶ 5).
Claim 9: Demuth discloses the vinyl pyrrolidone polymer being 75% by weight (¶¶ 93-99).
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayer (US 2016/0333165) in view of Klucel (“Klucel hydroxypropylcellulose – Physical and chemical properties”, Ashland Inc., 2017), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Dayagi (US 2016/0229128).
Claim 3: Bayer is silent as to the material including ethyl cellulose. However, Dayagi discloses a support material for three-dimensional printing, including ethyl cellulose (¶ 70). As taught by Dayagi, including ethyl cellulose in the support material enhances scratch resistance and controlling the interface with the printed object (¶ 70). 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 ethyl cellulose in the support material of Bayer in order to enhance scratch resistance and control the interface with the printed object.
Claim 6: Dayagi is silent as to the claimed ethoxy range. However, absent evidence of unexpected results obtained from the claimed ethoxy content, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have selected a suitable ethoxy content depending on the desired viscosity of the material (¶¶ 70-71). The optimization of a range or other variable within the claims that flows from the “normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known” is prima facie obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (determining where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges the optimum combination of percentages lies is prima facie obvious). The discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is usually obvious. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (C.C.P.A. 1980) (“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.”). See also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘[I]t is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’” (quoting Aller, 220 F.2d at 456)); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (finding no clear error in Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences’ conclusion that the amount of eluent to be used in a washing sequence was a matter of routine optimization known in the pertinent prior art and therefore obvious).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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