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 and Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed September 18, 2025, are acknowledged. Claims 12 and 22 are amended, and Claims 26-29 are newly added. No new matter has been added.
Claims 3, 5-6, 8 and 12-29 are pending and currently considered in this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 17, 2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on June 18, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 5-6, 8, 12-14, 16-20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramirez (previously cited, US 20180133957 A1) in view of Shaarawi (previously cited, WO 2017131757 A1), Abbott (US 20180147777 A1) and Zheng (previously cited, US 20130331927 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Ramirez discloses a method of three-dimensional printing (Abstract; Fig. 1), comprising:
iteratively applying individual build material layers of polymer particles to a powder bed (para. [0036]; para. [0046], wherein particulate matter may be a semi-crystalline polymer);
based on a three-dimensional object model, selectively jetting a fusing agent onto an area of the individual build material layers, wherein the fusing agent comprises water and a radiation absorber (para. [0001]; para. [0032]; para. [0066], wherein printing fluid may comprise fluids such as water; Fig. 1, fusing agent jetted to build area/individual layers); and
exposing the powder bed to energy to selectively fuse the polymer particles in contact with the radiation absorber to form a fused polymer matrix at individual build material layers (para. [0033]-[0035]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the energy forms a fused polymer matrix comprising the fusing agent because Ramirez teaches wherein the particulate material is polymeric (see above, para. [0046]).
Ramirez discloses wherein the jetted fluids comprise water and co-solvents such as glycol ethers (para. [0019]), but fails to specifically disclose a co-solvent of propylene glycol.
Shaarawi teaches a liquid functional agent for binder jetting consisting of a functional material (energy source material or energy sink material) and a liquid vehicle, wherein the liquid vehicle includes 1-50wt% co-solvent, 0.01-5wt% surfactant and a balance of water, in order to improve reliability, nozzle health, and decap performance as well as to quickly wet the build material (para. [0016]-[0018]; wt% in terms of total wt% of functional agent; para. [0020]; para. [0024]).
Shaarawi teaches wherein the co-solvent may be glycol ethers (as disclosed by Ramirez), or further, glycols, and suitably one which has a humectant functionality and a boiling point of 120C or more (para. [0018]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that propylene glycol comprises a boiling point above 120C and is a humectant.
Abbott teaches a similar liquid vehicle, wherein the organic solvent may be a glycol ether (as disclosed by Ramirez and Shaarawi) or propylene glycol (Abstract, 5-50wt% organic solvent, surfactant, balance of water; para. [0062], wherein solvent may be propylene glycol; para. [0065], 0.01-5wt% surfactant). Propylene glycol is a glycol, as taught by Shaarawi (see above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a liquid vehicle for the functional agents comprising 5-50wt% organic co-solvent, such as propylene glycol, and 0.01-5wt% surfactant, and a balance of water, as taught by Shaarawi and Abbott, for the invention disclosed by Ramirez, in order to improve reliability, nozzle health, and decap performance, and in order to quickly wet the build material (see teaching by Shaarawi).
One would be motivated to specifically use propylene glycol as the co-solvent in order to obtain the above teaching by Shaarawi, and because propylene glycol is a glycol which is suitable due to its high boiling point (above 120C) and humectant properties (see teaching above by Shaarawi). It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07). Additionally, both Shaarawi and Abbott recognize the art equivalence of propylene glycol (and glycols) with that of glycol ethers, which are disclosed as a co-solvent by Ramirez (see MPEP 2144.06.II).
Ramirez discloses selectively jetting multiple fluids comprising different agents onto the individual build material layers, such as detailing agents which evaporate when irradiated with electromagnetic radiation (para. [0019]; para. [0045]). Ramirez however fails to disclose wherein the detailing agent or another one of the agents dispensed is a pore-promoting agent, such that the pore-promoting agent comprises water and a water-soluble pore-promoting compound.
Shaarawi teaches a liquid functional agent for binder jetting consisting of a soluble functional material (energy source material or energy sink material) and a liquid vehicle, wherein the energy sink material is one which thermally decomposes into to a gas or vapor phase and therefore evaporates or sublimates from the build material (para. [0037]; para. [0042]; para. [0102]). Shaarawi teaches wherein the energy sink material may be applied where a hole is desired (para. [0040]).
Zheng teaches a pore-promoting agent comprising a water-soluble pore-promoting compound of salt, such as sodium bicarbonate, which chemically reacts at an elevated temperature due to radiation or heat to generate a gas, in order to form a biodegradable part with degradation (porosity) features (para. [0242]-[0243], para. [0524] – see chemical blowing agent; Abstract; salts such as sodium bicarbonate are water-soluble).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selectively jetted an agent which chemically reacts at an elevated temperature to generate a gas, as taught by Shaarawi and Zheng, and further to have specifically used a pore-promoting agent comprising a pore-promoting compound of sodium bicarbonate, as taught by Zheng, for the invention disclosed by Ramirez. One would be motivated to include a pore-promoting agent with a pore-promoting compound in order to form holes (see teaching by Shaarawi) or to print a biodegradable part with specific porosity (see Abstract of Zheng and teachings above). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the pore-forming agent be jetted onto the build area and individual layers, which is the area that the fusing agent is jetted on to. Examiner notes that Claim 2 does not require that the pore-forming agent be jetted with the same pattern and selective locations as the fusing agent and may only need be the same build area. However, Ramirez teaches wherein two different fluids may be jetted to overlapping areas (para. [0038]-[0040]; see also Claim 14 and Fig. 3).
Ramirez discloses wherein the dispensing fluids comprises water, co-solvent and surfactant to improve dispersability (para. [0066]), and Shaarawi and Abbott teach wherein the liquid vehicle for the functional fluid (material) consists of a co-solvent, such as propylene glycol, a surfactant and a balance of water (see above teachings by Shaarawi and Abbott, see para. [0024] of Shaarawi, wherein liquid vehicle consists of co-solvent, surfactant and water).
Therefore, Ramirez in view of Shaarawi, Abbott and Zheng disclose a pore-promoting agent comprising water, propylene glycol and a water-soluble pore-promoting compound selected from the group consisting of sodium bicarbonate and potassium bicarbonate, as claimed.
Regarding Claim 5, Ramirez discloses wherein the radiation absorber is selected from a group consisting of a metal dithiolene complex, carbon black, a near-infrared absorbing dye, a near infra-red absorbing pigment, metal nanoparticles, a conjugated polymer, and a combination thereof (para. [0044], wherein absorber may be a near infrared dye or near infrared pigment).
Regarding Claim 6, Ramirez discloses selectively jetting a detailing agent onto a portion of the individual build layers, wherein the detailing agent comprises a detailing compound that reduces a temperature of the powder bed material onto which the detailing agent is jetted (para. [0022]; para. [0045]).
Regarding Claim 8, Ramirez discloses wherein the build material is a particulate material and one of a polymeric material (para. [0046]), but fails to disclose the size of the polymer particles.
Abbott teaches wherein suitable build material is a polymeric material, and wherein the build material comprises a particle size range of 1-60um (para. [0018] and para. [0022]). Because Abbott disclose a substantially similar process to Ramirez, and one comprising the manufacture of three-dimensional objects using a powder bed process and jettable fusing agents (see Abstract of Abbott), Abbott demonstrates the suitability of the polymer size for the process of Ramirez.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a particle size of 1-60um, as taught by Abbott, for the invention disclosed by Ramirez, because Abbott teaches that this is a suitable and appropriate size of particle to successfully build a three-dimension object from a powder bed process utilizing jettable fusing agents (see teaching above and Abstract of Abbott).
Regarding Claim 13, Zheng teaches wherein the pore-promoting compound is sodium bicarbonate (para. [0524], see teaching above in Claim 12).
Regarding Claim 14, Ramirez does not expressly disclose elevated temperatures from about 80C to about 200C. However, Ramirez teaches wherein pigments may be included, which have a decomposition temperature of 250C or greater in order to maintain color during exposure to fusing temperatures (para. [0042]). Thus, it would be obvious that fusing temperatures (elevated temperatures) are below 250C, and within the claimed range of about 80C to about 200C, in order to preserve the color of any pigments used during processing.
Further, Ramirez also discloses wherein the temperature of the particulate material is elevated to reach a temperature sufficient to melt and fuse together, and wherein the energy source brings the particulate material to a temperature for fusion (para. [0035]; para. [0046]).
Abbot teaches wherein suitable polymer build material particles used to form 3D printed objects include polyamides and thermos plastic polyurethanes, and wherein these materials comprise a melting temperature of 180C and from 100-165C, respectively (para. [0018]-[0019]). Abbott also teaches wherein the build material is brought above its melting point to allow fusing (para. [0077]).
Additionally, Zheng also teaches wherein biodegradable medical devices may be formed from polyamides and thermoplastic polyurethanes and the materials taught by Abbott (para. [0291]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have elevated the polymeric build material particles to the melting temperature to cause fusion, as disclosed by Ramirez and taught by Abbott, and to have further used the polymeric materials of Abbott (and Zhang), such as polyamides or thermal polyurethanes, and therefore used an elevated temperature of 180C for polyamide build material and 100-165C for thermoplastic polyurethane build material, as taught by Abbott, for the invention disclosed by Ramirez.
One would be motivated to use these polymer materials for the particulate build material in order to successfully form a 3D printed structure, and one which may be usable as a biodegradable medical implant (see teachings by Abbott and Zheng above). Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07).
An elevated temperature of 100-165C and of 180C reads on the claimed range of 80-200C. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Additionally, Applicant has not provided criticality for the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 16, Ramirez discloses wherein the build material is a polymer material (para. [0046]), but is silent towards suitable or specific polymeric materials.
Abbot teaches wherein suitable polymer build material particles used to form 3D printed objects include polyamide-6 particles, polyamide-9 particles, polyamide-11 particles, polyamide-12 particles, polyamide-6,6 particles, polyamide-6,12 particles, polyethylene particles, thermoplastic (thermal) polyurethanes, polyester particles, polycarbonate particles, polystyrene particles, and blends of any two or more (para. [0018]).
Zheng also teaches wherein biodegradable medical devices may be formed form polymeric materials, including those taught by Abbott(para. [0291]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used polymeric particles selected from polyamide-6 particles, polyamide-9 particles, polyamide-11 particles, polyamide-12 particles, polyamide-6,6 particles, polyamide-6,12 particles, polyethylene particles, thermoplastic (thermal) polyurethanes, polyester particles, polycarbonate particles, polystyrene particles, and blends of any two or more, as taught by Abbott and Zheng, for the invention disclosed by Ramirez, in order to successfully form a 3D printed structure, and one which may be usable as a biodegradable medical implant (see teachings by Abbott and Zheng above). Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 17, Shaarawi and Abbott disclose wherein the liquid vehicle of the fluid agent, and therefore liquid vehicle of the pore-promoting agent taught by Zheng, comprises water, a co-solvent, and from 0.1-1wt% of a surfactant, based on a total weight of the pore-promoting agent (Shaarawi, para. [0016]-[0018] and para. [0020]; Abbot, Abstract; para. [0065]).
Regarding Claim 18, Ramirez and Shaarawi are silent towards the percentage of reaction in the functional material (pore-forming compound) in the functional agent.
However, Shaarawi, Abbott and Zheng disclose the claimed pore-forming agent (sodium bicarbonate pore-forming compound in a liquid vehicle comprise propylene glycol as a co-solvent, a surfactant, and a balance of water), and it would be obvious that the pore-forming agent behave and react the same when processed in the same manner and at the same elevated temperature.
Ramirez discloses wherein the temperature of the particulate material is elevated to reach a temperature sufficient to melt and fuse together, and wherein the energy source brings the particulate material, and therefore areas with the applied fluid agents, to a temperature for fusion (para. [0035]; para. [0046]).
Abbot teaches wherein suitable polymer build material particles used to form 3D printed objects include polyamides and thermos plastic polyurethanes, and wherein these materials comprise a melting temperature of 180C and from 100-165C, respectively (para. [0018]-[0019]). Abbott also teaches wherein the build material is brought above its melting point to allow fusing (para. [0077]).
Additionally, Zheng also teaches wherein biodegradable medical devices may be formed from polyamides and thermoplastic polyurethanes and the materials taught by Abbott (para. [0291]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have elevated the polymeric build material particles to the melting temperature to cause fusion, as disclosed by Ramirez and taught by Abbott, and to have further used the polymeric materials of Abbott (and Zhang), such as polyamides or thermal polyurethanes, and therefore used an elevated temperature of 180C for polyamide build material and 100-165C for thermoplastic polyurethane build material, as taught by Abbott, for the invention disclosed by Ramirez.
One would be motivated to use these polymer materials for the particulate build material in order to successfully form a 3D printed structure, and one which may be usable as a biodegradable medical implant (see teachings by Abbott and Zheng above). Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07).
Therefore, Shaarawi, Abbott and Zheng disclose the claimed pore-forming agent (sodium bicarbonate pore-forming compound in a liquid vehicle comprise propylene glycol as a co-solvent, a surfactant, and a balance of water), and Ramirez and Abbott teach the same elevated temperature which the pore-forming agent/compound is exposed to (Abbott, 100-165C and 180C; instant invention, para. [0018] and [0028], 80-200C; see also Claim 14). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the pore-forming agent and compound thereof react the same amount (50-95%) as claimed because the pore-forming agent and compound are the same as claimed, and further processed at the same elevated temperature range as the instant invention.
When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 19, Ramirez discloses wherein exposing of the powder bed to energy includes irradiating the powder bed with a fusing lamp (para. [0021]).
Regarding Claim 20, Ramirez discloses wherein selectively jetting of the fusing agent and selectively jetting of each of the other liquid agents are each accomplished using a fluid jet print head in order to deposit a particular agent upon defined areas of a plurality of successive layers of the substrate (para. [0019]; Fig. 1, print heads 112). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the pore-promoting agent also be selectively jetted using the fluid jet print head as well in order to deposit the pore-promoting agent to defined areas, as taught by Ramirez (see teaching above by Zheng regarding the incorporation of a pore-promoting agent).
Regarding Claim 23, Ramirez discloses wherein a fluid agent is selectively jetted on a powdered layer to which the fusing agent has been selectively jetted (para. [0038]-[0040]).
Ramirez teaches applying fluid agent such as those comprising colorants to facilitate variation in the properties of the object such that different portions of the object have different mechanical properties (para. [0024]).
Zheng teaches wherein the degradation of the biodegradable device (see teaching above in Claim 12) may be variable (non-uniform) along or throughout the body of the medical device, wherein degradation is controlled by the occurrence of pores (para. [0563]; para. [0566]). Zheng teaches the formation of such pores using the blowing agent (see teaching above and para. [0524]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that in order to produce variable degradation using pores, the pore structure would also need to be variable.
Zheng also teaches wherein the object may comprise areas which non-porous and also areas which are porous (para. [0585]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the pore-forming agent in the manner disclosed by Ramirez (application of fluid agents to selective areas to acquire non-uniform properties) to effectively provide areas which comprise the pore-forming agent and those which do not, thereby forming a polymer matrix having porous and non-porous portions, as taught by Zheng. One would be motivated to do this in order to provide a biodegradable part comprising variable degradation properties or different mechanical properties for selective locations (see teachings by Zheng and Ramirez above).
Regarding Claim 24, Ramirez and Shaarawi are silent towards the percentage of reaction in the functional material (pore-forming compound) in the functional agent, and fail to disclose wherein a portion of the pore-promoting compound remains unreacted at the elevated temperature.
However, Shaarawi, Abbott and Zheng disclose the claimed pore-forming agent (sodium bicarbonate pore-forming compound in a liquid vehicle comprise propylene glycol as a co-solvent, a surfactant, and a balance of water), and it would be obvious that the pore-forming agent behave and react the same when processed in the same manner and at the same elevated temperature.
Ramirez discloses wherein the temperature of the particulate material is elevated to reach a temperature sufficient to melt and fuse together, and wherein the energy source brings the particulate material, and therefore areas with the applied fluid agents, to a temperature for fusion (para. [0035]; para. [0046]).
Abbot teaches wherein suitable polymer build material particles used to form 3D printed objects include polyamides and thermos plastic polyurethanes, and wherein these materials comprise a melting temperature of 180C and from 100-165C, respectively (para. [0018]-[0019]). Abbott also teaches wherein the build material is brought above its melting point to allow fusing (para. [0077]).
Additionally, Zheng also teaches wherein biodegradable medical devices may be formed from polyamides and thermoplastic polyurethanes and the materials taught by Abbott (para. [0291]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have elevated the polymeric build material particles to the melting temperature to cause fusion, as disclosed by Ramirez and taught by Abbott, and to have further used the polymeric materials of Abbott (and Zhang), such as polyamides or thermal polyurethanes, and therefore used an elevated temperature of 180C for polyamide build material and 100-165C for thermoplastic polyurethane build material, as taught by Abbott, for the invention disclosed by Ramirez.
One would be motivated to use these polymer materials for the particulate build material in order to successfully form a 3D printed structure, and one which may be usable as a biodegradable medical implant (see teachings by Abbott and Zheng above). Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07).
Therefore, Shaarawi, Abbott and Zheng disclose the claimed pore-forming agent (sodium bicarbonate pore-forming compound in a liquid vehicle comprise propylene glycol as a co-solvent, a surfactant, and a balance of water), and Ramirez and Abbott teach the same elevated temperature which the pore-forming agent/compound is exposed to (Abbott, 100-165C and 180C; instant invention, para. [0018] and [0028], 80-200C; see also Claim 14). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the pore-forming agent and compound thereof react the same amount, wherein a portion of the pore-promoting compound remains unreacted at the elevated temperature, as claimed, because the pore-forming agent and compound are the same as claimed, and further processed at the same elevated temperature range as the instant invention.
When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01.
Claim 3 and Claim 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramirez (previously cited, US 20180133957 A1) in view of Shaarawi (previously cited, WO 2017131757 A1), Abbott (US 20180147777 A1) and Zheng (previously cited, US 20130331927 A1), as applied in Claim 12 above, in further view of Ng (previously cited, US 20170274594 A1) and Castro (previously cited, US 20180055643 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Shaarawi teaches greater than 0wt% and up to 100wt% of the energy sink material which forms a gas when irradiated (para. [0041]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the sink material of Shaarawi reads on a pore-forming agent (see description of blowing (pore-forming agent by Zheng, para. [0524]).
Shaarawi but does not disclose a narrower range.
Ng teaches a liquid suspension modifier agent for ink jetting which comprises 5-50wt% water soluble inorganic salt (para. [0048]; para. [0046]). Ng therefore teaches a workable range of a soluble metal salt in a liquid carrier in order to successfully jet the salt and agent onto a layer of powdered material.
Castro teaches controlling the amount of soluble material (pore-promoting compound, including sodium carbonate) to be 5-50wt% in a structure in order to tailor the pore structure, thereby also simulating different tissue types (para. [0045]; para. [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used 5-50wt% of the pore-forming compound, as taught by Shaarawi and Ng, for the invention disclosed by Ramirez and Zheng, in order to successfully jet the pore-forming agent onto a powder material (teaching by Ng), and to tailor the pore structure of the printed object to simulate different tissue types and/or to provide different degradation rates for a medical device (see teaching by Castro above and teaching by Zheng in Claim 12 above).
The values taught by Shaarawi (>0 to 100wt%) and Ng (5-50wt%), overlap with the claimed range of 1-10wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Additionally, Applicant has not provided criticality for the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 25, Shaarawi, Abbott and Zheng disclose wherein the liquid functional agent consists of a functional material (sodium bicarbonate) and a liquid vehicle, wherein the liquid vehicle includes 1-50wt% co-solvent (propylene glycol), 0.01-5wt% surfactant and a balance of water, based on the total weight of the functional agent (para. [0016]-[0018]; wt% in terms of total wt% of functional agent; para. [0020]; para. [0024]; see teaching above by Zheng in Claim 12, wherein functional material/sink is sodium bicarbonate; see teaching above in Claim 12 by Shaarawi and Abbott wherein co-solvent is propylene glycol).
Shaarawi teaches greater than 0wt% and up to 100wt% of the energy sink material which forms a gas when irradiated (para. [0041]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the sink material of Shaarawi reads on a pore-forming agent (see description of blowing (pore-forming agent by Zheng, para. [0524]), but does not disclose a narrower range such as the claimed 5-10% range.
Ng teaches a liquid suspension modifier agent for ink jetting which comprises 5-50wt% water soluble inorganic salt (para. [0048]; para. [0046]). Ng therefore teaches a workable range of a soluble metal salt in a liquid carrier in order to successfully jet the salt and agent onto a layer of powdered material.
Castro also teaches controlling the amount of soluble material (pore-promoting compound, including sodium carbonate) to be 5-50wt% in a structure in order to tailor the pore structure, thereby also simulating different tissue types (para. [0045]; para. [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used 5-50wt% of the functional material and therefore the pore-forming compound of sodium bicarbonate, as taught by Shaarawi and Ng, for the invention disclosed by Ramirez and Zheng, in order to successfully jet the soluble salt and therefore pore-forming agent onto a powder material (teaching by Ng), and to tailor the pore structure of the printed object to simulate different tissue types and/or to provide different degradation rates for a medical device (see teaching by Castro above and teaching by Zheng in Claim 12 above).
The values taught by Shaarawi, Abbott and Ng, including a functional (pore-promoting) agent consisting of 1-50wt% propylene glycol (co-solvent), 5-50wt% sodium bicarbonate (functional material/pore-promoting compound), 0.01-5wt% surfactant and a balance of water, based on the total weight of the functional liquid agent (pore-forming agent), overlap with the claimed range of a pore-promoting agent consisting of 25-30wt% propylene glycol, 5-10% sodium bicarbonate, 0.1-1wt% surfactant, and balance of water, as claimed.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Additionally, Applicant has not provided criticality for the claimed range.
Claim 15 and Claim 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramirez (previously cited, US 20180133957 A1) in view of Shaarawi (previously cited, WO 2017131757 A1), Abbott (US 20180147777 A1) and Zheng (previously cited, US 20130331927 A1), as applied to Claim 12 above, in further view of Castro (previously cited, US 20180055643 A1).
Regarding Claim 15 and Claim 26, Zheng is silent towards pore size.
Castro teaches wherein pore sizes for tissue structures formed by the removal of sodium bicarbonate may be 200nm to 50um (0.2-50um), or alternatively from about 100um to about 200um, in order to produce different tissue construction types such as bone, cartilage, connective tissue or skeletal tissue (Abstract; para. [0005]-para. [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have produced a pore size of 0.2-50um, and/or about 100um, as taught by Castro, for the invention disclosed by Ramirez and Zheng, in order to produce different tissue construction types such as bone, cartilage, connective tissue or skeletal tissue (para. [0005]-para. [0006]). A pore size of 0.2-50um reads on the claimed range of (Claim 15) 0.1-100um and (Claim 26) 1-100um.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramirez (previously cited, US 20180133957 A1) in view of Shaarawi (previously cited, WO 2017131757 A1), Abbott (US 20180147777 A1) and Zheng (previously cited, US 20130331927 A1), as applied to Claim 12 above, in further view of Crudden (previously cited, US 20190298523 A1) and Castro (previously cited, US 20180055643 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Ramirez and Abbott disclose wherein the build material is polymer particle up to 100um, and one which fuses from being irradiated (Ramirez, para. [0030]; para. [0046]; Abbott, para. [0018]; para. [0022]). Shaarawi and Zheng teach wherein gas forms isolated pores in a fused matrix from the irradiation of the pore-forming compound (Shaarawi, para. [0037] and para. [0039], holes and apertures read on pores; Zheng, para. [0524]).
However, none of the references disclose wherein the pores have an average diameter that is smaller than an average particle size of the polymer powder.
Castro teaches wherein pore sizes for tissue structures comprise pores formed by the removal of sodium bicarbonate, and wherein the pore size is 1nm to 50um (0.001-50um), such as 200nm-50um (0.2-50um), in order to produce different tissue construction types such as bone, cartilage, connective tissue or skeletal tissue (para. [0005]-para. [0006]; para. [0059]).
Crudden similarly teaches using up to 100um size of polymeric material comprising a pore-promoting agent in order to produce a porous implant material (Abstract; para. [0033]). Crudden teaches wherein the porogen material is 2-10um, preferably 4-8um, and produces pores of similar size (para. [0038]). Crudden teaches this porogen size allows for homogenous porogen distribution in handling steps and uniform distribution in the resulting composite (para. [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used up to 100um polymer particles, as taught by Abbott and Crudden, and to have used a porogen of 4-8um in size, thereby forming a pore of similar size (about 4-8um), as taught by Crudden, for the invention disclosed by Ramirez, Shaarawi, Abbott and Zheng. One would be motivated to use these polymer particle sizes in order to successfully additively manufacture a component using a binder jetting operation, and one would be motivated to use this size of pore-forming agent (porogen) in order to provide a homogenous porogen distribution in both handling distribution in the build material, and in order to produce different tissue construction types requiring a smaller pore size (see teachings by Crudden and Castro above).
Pores of 4-8um, which have formed from the pore-forming compound of similar size, would comprise an average diameter that is smaller than the average particle size of the polymer particles (up to 100um). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Additionally, Applicant has not provided criticality for the claimed range.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramirez (previously cited, US 20180133957 A1) in view of Shaarawi (previously cited, WO 2017131757 A1), Abbott (US 20180147777 A1) and Zheng (previously cited, US 20130331927 A1), as applied to Claim 12 above, in further view of Rogren (US 20200108553 A1).
Regarding Claim 22, Zheng discloses variable porosity (para. [0536]; para. [0566], where degradation is due to porosities), but is silent towards the specific amount of porosity.
Rogren teaches jetting multiple fluids containing pore-forming agents for patterning different porosity levels, such as in the range of 0-10% or in the range of 25-75%, in order to assemble different porosities in a three-dimensional object (para. [0105]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the porosity values to be volume percent unless otherwise stated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a porosity levels such as 0-10vol%, which reads on the claimed range of 5-20vol%, and of 25-75vol%, as taught by Rogren, for the invention disclosed by Zheng, in order to form different porosities in a three dimensional object and therefore successfully realize a variable porosity and degradation rate of a three dimensional object (see teachings by Zheng and Rogren above).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Claims 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramirez (previously cited, US 20180133957 A1) in view of Shaarawi (previously cited, WO 2017131757 A1), Abbott (previously cited, US 20180147777 A1), Fathi (US 20180269174 A1), Rogren (US 20200108553 A1), Bitterlich (WO 2018206250 A1, English Translation provided) and Zheng (previously cited, US 20130331927 A1).
Regarding Claim 27 and Claim 29, Ramirez discloses a method of three-dimensional printing (Abstract; Fig. 1), comprising:
iteratively applying individual build material layers of polymer particles to a powder bed (para. [0036]; para. [0046], wherein particulate matter may be a semi-crystalline polymer);
based on a three-dimensional object model, selectively jetting a fusing agent onto the individual build material layers, wherein the fusing agent comprises water and a radiation absorber (para. [0001]; para. [0032]; para. [0066], wherein printing fluid may comprise fluids such as water); and
exposing the powder bed to energy to selectively fuse the polymer particles in contact with the radiation absorber to form a fused polymer matrix at individual build material layers (para. [0033]-[0035]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the energy forms a fused polymer matrix comprising the fusing agent because Ramirez teaches wherein the particulate material is polymeric (see above, para. [0046]).
Ramirez discloses wherein the jetted fluids comprise water and co-solvents such as glycol ethers (para. [0019]), but fails to specifically disclose a co-solvent of propylene glycol.
Shaarawi teaches a liquid functional agent for binder jetting consisting of a functional material (energy source material or energy sink material) and a liquid vehicle, wherein the liquid vehicle includes 1-50wt% co-solvent, 0.01-5wt% surfactant and a balance of water, in order to improve reliability, nozzle health, and decap performance as well as to quickly wet the build material (para. [0016]-[0018]; wt% in terms of total wt% of functional agent; para. [0020]; para. [0024]).
Shaarawi teaches wherein the co-solvent may be glycol ethers (as disclosed by Ramirez), or further, glycols, and suitably one which has a humectant functionality and a boiling point of 120C or more (para. [0018]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that propylene glycol comprises a boiling point above 120C and is a humectant.
Abbott teaches a similar liquid vehicle, wherein the organic solvent may be a glycol ether (as disclosed by Ramirez and Shaarawi) or propylene glycol (Abstract, 5-50wt% organic solvent, surfactant, balance of water; para. [0062], wherein solvent may be propylene glycol; para. [0065], 0.01-5wt% surfactant). Propylene glycol is a glycol, as taught by Shaarawi (see above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a liquid vehicle for the functional agents comprising 5-50wt% organic co-solvent, such as propylene glycol, and 0.01-5wt% surfactant, and a balance of water, as taught by Shaarawi and Abbott, for the invention disclosed by Ramirez, in order to improve reliability, nozzle health, and decap performance, and in order to quickly wet the build material (see teaching by Shaarawi).
One would be motivated to specifically use propylene glycol as the co-solvent in order to obtain the above teaching by Shaarawi, and because propylene glycol is a glycol which is suitable due to its high boiling point (above 120C) and humectant properties (see teaching above by Shaarawi). It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07). Additionally, both Shaarawi and Abbott recognize the art equivalence of propylene glycol (and glycols) with that of glycol ethers, which are disclosed as a co-solvent by Ramirez (see MPEP 2144.06.II).
Ramirez discloses selectively jetting additional and different fluids, wherein different fluids may be dispensed over the same selected areas that the fusing agent is dispensed in the individual build material layer (Fig. 3; para. [0019]; para. [0022]-[0023]; para. [0037]-[0045]; see Claim 14 and Fig. 3 wherein the different agents such as the colorant (first absorber) and the second absorber may be dispensed to the same selected location).
However, Ramirez is silent towards dispensing a fluid with a pore-promoting agent, such that the pore-promoting agent comprises water and a water-soluble pore-promoting compound.
Fathi teaches wherein a composition to be irradiated comprises an energy converting material capable of absorbing an imparted energy and additionally other components such as pore-formers (para. [0097]).
Rogren teaches jetting multiple fluids containing pore-forming agents for patterning different porosity levels, such as in the range of 0-10% or in the range of 25-75%, in order to assemble different porosities in a three-dimensional object (para. [0105]).
Bitterlich teaches the addition of a pore-forming substance which is deposited via a dispenser for targeted pore generation, to produce desired pore patterns such as by finite element calculation, and to provide selected areas with porosity (para. [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a dispensing fluid comprising a pore-forming agent, as taught by Fathi, Rogren an Bitterlich, which is applied to the same area as the fusing agent, as taught by Fathi and Ramirez, for the invention disclosed by Ramirez and Shaarawi, in order to assemble different porosities in a three-dimensional object, to produce targeted pore generation and pore patterns such as those calculated by finite element analysis, and to provide selected areas with porosity (see teachings above by Rogren and Bitterlich). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that to achieve a location with both the pore-former and the fusing agent, as taught by Fathi, that the fusing agent would be applied to the same selective area that the pore former is selectively applied (Ramirez also teaches wherein multiple fluids are applied to the same area – see Claim 14).
Fathi, Rogren and Bitterlich do not disclose the type of pore promoter.
Zheng teaches a pore-promoting agent comprising a water-soluble pore-promoting compound of salt, such as sodium bicarbonate, which chemically reacts at an elevated temperature due to radiation or heat to generate a gas, in order to form a biodegradable part with degradation (porosity) features (para. [0242]-[0243], para. [0524] – see chemical blowing agent; Abstract; salts such as sodium bicarbonate are water-soluble).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selectively jetted an agent which comprises a pore-forming agent of sodium bicarbonate, and therefore one which chemically reacts at an elevated temperature to generate a gas in the material matrix at the selected location, as taught by Zheng, for the invention disclosed by Ramirez, Fathi, Rogren and Bitterlich, because Bitterlich discloses wherein this material is appropriate as a pore-forming agent and one which produces porosity, particularly to form a biodegradable part with a specific porosity.
Shaarawi and Abbott teach the liquid vehicle above and it would be obvious to use this liquid vehicle for additional fluid agents including the water-soluble sodium bicarbonate pore-forming agent of Zheng. Further, Shaarawi teaches wherein the liquid vehicle is used for a similar functional agent which also thermally decomposes into to a gas or vapor phase by the introduction of heat or radiation (para. [0037]; para. [0042]; para. [0102]), and thus would be appropriate for use for the agent taught by Zheng.
Ramirez discloses wherein the dispensing fluids comprises water, co-solvent and surfactant to improve dispersability (para. [0066]), and Shaarawi and Abbott teach wherein the liquid vehicle for the functional fluid (material) consists of a co-solvent, such as propylene glycol, a surfactant and a balance of water (see above teachings by Shaarawi and Abbott, see para. [0024] of Shaarawi, wherein liquid vehicle consists of co-solvent, surfactant and water).
Therefore, Ramirez in view of Shaarawi, Abbott, Fathi, Rogren, Bitterlich and Zheng disclose a pore-promoting agent comprising (Claim 27) water and sodium bicarbonate, and further consisting of (Claim 29) water, propylene glycol, a surfactant and sodium bicarbonate, as claimed.
Regarding Claim 28, Ramirez discloses repeating the iteratively applying, the selectively jetting of the fusing agent, the selectively jetting of the detailing agent and therefore pore-promoting agent taught by Fathi, Rogren, Bitterlich and Zheng, and the exposing to form a three-dimensional object (Abstract; Fig. 1-2, para. [0036]; [0046]).
Bitterlich and Zheng disclose wherein the pore-forming agent and therefore gas forms pores at selected locations (Zheng, para. [0524]; Bitterlich, para. [0031], targeted locations), and Bitterlich and Zheng further discloses wherein the selected location defines an interior portion of the three-dimensional object (Zheng, para. [0524]; a cellular structure reads pores within an interior portion; para. [0566], features such as holes or pores ‘in and/or on the body, which reads on interior portion).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed September 18, 2025, with respect to Claim 12, and dependent claims thereof, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Ramirez in view of Ramirez in view of Shaarawi, Abbott and Zheng, have been fully considered, but are respectfully not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that one would not replace the detailing agent of Ramirez with the pore forming agent of Zheng, Shaarawi and Abbott because Ramirez discloses that the detailing agent is applied to regions not to be fused. Applicant argues the claimed method selectively jets pore-forming agent, not detailing agent.
Applicant argue that Ramirez discloses wherein the detailing agent cools the substrate in areas not to be fused, and argues the pore forming agent would not work the a manner to cool the substrate and therefore would not function as the detailing agent. Applicant argues that the combination of Zheng, Shaarawi and Abbott is unsatisfactory for use by Ramirez.
These arguments are not found persuasive.
The rejection does not specify that the pore-forming agent is replacing the detailing agent of Ramirez. Nonetheless, Ramirez does not recite wherein the detailing agent dispensing locations are mutually exclusive from the fusing agent locations. Ramirez states that the detailing agent merely prevents fusing (it may also cool the substrate but it is not required), and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the detailing agent may prevent fusion in the presence of the fusing agent as well, particularly in view that Ramirez teaches applying different fusing agents to the same selective locations. Shaarawi similarly demonstrates applying both the sink and source material to tailor the thermal conditions of the layer (para. [0071]). Shaarawi also teaches the prevention of fusion at select locations in the same manner that Zheng does (forming a gas at elevated temperatures), and where in doing so creates holes. The pores taught by Zheng reads on holes. Thus, it would be obvious to use a pore-forming agent to form holes or pores, as either an additional and separate fluid agent, or as the detailing agent, because the pore-forming agent of Shaarawi and Zheng would prevent fusing, as required by Ramirez, and would further be capable for forming holes/pores in select locations by this prevention of fusing and therefore work in the manner disclose by Ramirez (to prevent fusing).
Applicant argues that the presence of pores in the final product of Ramirez would adversely affect its mechanical properties. Applicant cites para. [0012], which describes producing objects with a variety of mechanical properties, and para. [0018], wherein mechanical properties may be produced to be substantially uniform.
This argument is not found persuasive.
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the mechanical properties referred to would be the matrix structure (remaining and fused material), rather than the design (geometry or CAD design) structure of the object. Further, Ramirez also recites “to vary the mechanical properties of part of an object” (para. [0012]), and therefore this argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that one would not be motivated to combine the teaching of Shaarawi with Ramirez because Ramirez is directed to a polymer build material while Shaarawi is directed to metallic and ceramic build material, which require different processing procedures and parameters.
This argument is not found persuasive.
Shaarawi and Abbott disclose the same liquid vehicle, and Abbott is directed to polymeric materials. Shaarawi and Zheng disclose pore forming materials which form pores by forming gas upon elevated temperature and exposure to energy, and Zheng is directed to polymeric materials. Thus, Abbott and Zheng demonstrate that the teachings of Shaarawi would be applicable to Ramirez despite the build material of Shaarawi being a metallic material because Abbott and Zheng are directed to polymeric materials.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ng (previously cited and cited above, US 20170274594 A1, further teachings): teaches using 0.1-10wt% of surfactant to total modifying agent fluid in order to have appropriate contact angle of less than 45 degrees with the polymeric particles (Abstract; para. [0049]).
Anthony (previously cited, WO 2019017926 A1): teaches selectively jetting a carrier liquid comprising water, co-solvent, a surfactant, and 5-50wt% of a hydrated metal salt (sodium bicarbonate in water is a hydrated alkaline metal salt), onto a layer of particulate building material (Abstract; para. [0038]; para. [0068]).
Li (previously cited, WO 2005072785 A1): teaches that pore-makers used to make implant structures, such as those comprising sodium bicarbonate and removed by heating, may be completely removed using temperatures of 200C or lower (Pg. 2, lines 23-25; Pg. 3, lines 20-22).
McCarthy (WO 2018213432 A1): teaches using a combination of liquid and solid non-reactive additives (NRAs), such as polypropylene glycol and sodium bicarbonate, wherein the liquid and solid NRAs comprise an affinity to each other but not the matrix composition (para. [0050]-[0051]; para. [0059]). McCarthy further teaches wherein sodium bicarbonate is preferred as a solid NRA due to its ability to be both removed by acids and also by heat, and wherein polypropylene glycol is a suitable liquid NRA for the solid NRA sodium bicarbonate (para. [0059] and para. [0061]).
Dikovsky (US 20200171739 A1): teaches a liquid jetting composition comprising water, and at least 50wt% non-curable materials, and teaches wherein one type of non-curable material includes polypropylene glycol (para. [0134; para. [0331]; para. [0323]; para. [0334], liquid formulation comprises water). Dikovsky discloses sodium bicarbonate as a support material which transforms to CO2 in the presence of an acidic solution (para. [0024]).
Yasrebi (US 20040138049 A1): discloses a binder system comprises 1-10% gas-forming agent such as sodium bicarbonate, and 30-50% of a water-soluble binder, including polyethylene glycol and polypropylene glycol (Abstract; para. [0012]; Claim 7 and Claim 14; para. [0026]; Claim 12).
Zheng (further teachings, applied above, US 20130331927 A1): teaches wherein the degradation of a porous biodegradable device may be uniform along or throughout the body of the medical device, wherein degradation is controlled by the occurrence of pores (para. [0563]; para. [0566]). Zheng teaches the formation of such pores using the blowing agent (see teaching above and para. [0524]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that in order to produce uniform degradation using pores, the pore structure would also need to be uniform.
Additionally, Ramirez teaches applying fluids to obtain uniform properties through the object, and therefore uniformity of the microstructure (pores) from the pore-forming agent (para. [0024]; para. [0064]; para. [0067]).
Shaarawi (applied above, further teachings, US 20180272600 A1): teaches wherein the energy sink material may be applied where a hole is desired (para. [0040]). Shaarawi further discloses wherein multiple liquid function agents may be mixed (i.e. applied) to the same area of the build material to alter a thermal condition of the layer, and wherein multiple liquid functional agents may be applied in the same pattern (para. [0044]; para. [0071]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Shaarawi encompasses applying the heat sink and the heat source agents to the same location in order to tailor the thermal condition.
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 CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 MT.
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, Keith Walker can be reached on (571)-272-3458. 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.
CATHERINE P. SMITH
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/CATHERINE P SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735