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 .
This Final Rejection is in response to the Applicant’s amendment received on 06/03/2024, in response to the Non-Final Action mailed on 02/08/2024.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ARKEMA FRANCE (WO 2018/206888 A1) in view Allen et al. (US 7, 468, 405 B2) and in further view of Monsheimer et al. (US 2008/0116616 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 17-18, ARKEMA FRANCE teaches a polyamide/polyether block copolymer powder (PEBA) (see pages 4, lines 9-18, page 10, lines 5-13). These copolymers have an enthalpy of fusion between 33 and 55 J/g (Table 1). The polyether blocks are PTMG blocks, the polyamide blocks are PA12, PA 11, or PA10.10 blocks at desired ratios (see Table 1). Furthermore, ARKEMA FRANCE teaches the percentage of polyamide blocks in the copolymer is in the range of 60 to 97%, preferably 65 to 95% and the percentage of polyether blocks in the copolymer is in the range of 3 to 40%, preferably 5 to 35% (see claim 4 specifically), however, fail to teach PA block having high enthalpy of fusion as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to polyamide, Allen et al. teach similar materials, and a method of increasing at least one of the two parameters of polyamide including its melting point and its enthalpy of melting (see abstract), for the purpose of obtaining good geometrical definition of the parts (see col 1 lines 55-60). Allen et al. further discloses if the enthalpy of melting is too low, the energy supplied by the laser is sufficient to sinter, by thermal conduction, the powder particles close to the walls being constructed, thus the geometrical precision of the part is no longer satisfactory (see col 1 lines 55 to 65). Allen et al. teach in order to increase the enthalpy of melting, various treatments including water or steam treatment preceded by conventional methanol treatment in order to extract oligomer contained in the polyamide (see col 2 lines 45-55). The resultant polyamide block powder obtained is used for manufacturing objects via sintering of polyamide powders by melting them using radiation, and this polyamide includes PA-6, PA6,6, PA-11, and PA-12 (see col 3 lines 1-30), and furthermore, these polyamide blocks that is modified are used in combinations with polyether blocks are desired weight ratios (see col 5 lines 20-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to substitute the polyamide block (that is modified achieving higher enthalpy of melting), as taught by Allen et al. with polyamide block as taught by ARKEMA FRANCE, for the purpose of obtaining good geometrical definition of the parts (see col 1 lines 50-65). Allen et al. further states that by doing so, having higher enthalpy allows the powder to be efficiently sintered by radiation thereby providing better precision in the parts formed. One skilled in the art working in the same field of endeavor of manufacturing of objects using copolymers of powders including polyamide block and polyether blocks, would easily optimize the enthalpy of melting of polyamide blocks as claimed, as taught by the above combination, in order to achieve desired quality final products.
Allen provides suggestion for having to raise melt enthalpy of polyamide block, as provided above, however, fails to teach the melt enthalpy value as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to polymer powder comprising polyamide, Monsheimer et al. provides examples the inventive polyamide powder has markedly higher enthalpy of fusion and also higher recrystallization temperature than conventional polymer powders, with components with higher surface quality can therefore be produced, because less powder adheres to the molten regions. The recycling capability of the inventive powder is therefore likewise improved in comparison with conventional polyamide powders (see [0143]). Monsheimer et al. teach that using the powder prepared for layer-by-layer production, and the enthalpy of fusion of polyamide prepared being at least 71 J/g (see claims 54-56 specifically; [0142] table present various melt enthalpies for various polyamides).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method taught by ARKEMA FRANCE such that the enthalpy would be raised for polyamide block, as taught by Allen with desired value as taught by Monsheimer et al., for providing reasonable expectation of success in order to produce parts having good geometrical definition (see col 1 lines 50 to col 2 lines 30).
Therefore, though the prior arts fail to teach combination of weight and melt enthalpy as claimed, however, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05(II). It would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success since ARKEMA FRANCE and Allen et al. specifically teach using copolymers made from polyamide block and polyether blocks at desired ratio, and Allen et al. disclose for such copolymers including polyamide block and polyether blocks, and having to raise/increased melt enthalpy value for polyamide blocks (see Allen: col 1 lines 50-65), for the purpose of obtaining good geometrical definition of the parts (see col 1 lines 50-65).
As for claims 2-6, ARKEMA FRANCE further teaches wherein the polyamide blocks have number-average molar mass from 600 – 6000 (“the number-average molecular mass of the PA blocks is in the range of 500 to 18000 g/mol, preferably in the range of 1000 to 15000 g/mol” see page 5, paragraphs 8 - 13) , and/or wherein the polyether have a number-average molar mass of from 250 to 2000 (“the number-average molecular mass of the PE blocks is in the range of 500 to 2000 g/mol, preferable in the range of 650 to 1000 g/mol” page 5, paragraphs 8-13 and examples and table 1); and being in the form of spheroidal particles having Dv50 size of 20 to 150 micron (“diameter median volume less than 400 micron, preferably less than 200 micron” see page 7 paragraph 6); wherein the copolymer containing polyamide blocks and polyether blocks comprise ester bonds between the polyamide blocks and the polyether blocks (pages 3, paragraphs 3 to page 10 paragraph 1).
Claim(s) 8 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ARKEMA FRANCE (WO 2018/206888 A1) in view of Allen et al. (US 7, 468, 405 B2) and in further view of Monsheimer et al. (US 2008/0116616 A1) and in further view of JABIL INC. (WO 2018/075530 A2, as provided by the applicant’s IDS).
Claim 8 – 15 pertains to method of manufacturing the claimed powder. ARKEMA FRANCE, Allen and Monsheimer et al. provides the suggestion for supplying the copolymer from polyamide and polyether blocks, as discussed above, however, fail to explicitly teach step of bringing the into copolymer with contact with solvent (ethanol), heating the mixture to dissolve the copolymer in the solvent; and cooling the mixture to form a precipitated copolymer in powder form.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to forming copolymer from polyamide block and polyether block, JABIL INC teaches supplying the copolymer from polyamide and polyether block including step of bringing the into copolymer with contact with solvent (ethanol) ([0044]), heating the mixture to dissolve the copolymer in the solvent; and cooling the mixture to form a precipitated copolymer in powder form (see [0033]-[0048] teaches heating, cooling, and specific solvents i.e. ethanol as per [0044]; see Fig. 4, claim 1); and the powder that is formed and using the powder formed for 3D printing layer-by-layer (see [0004]-[0008]).
JABIL INC further teaches the mixture is carried out specific heating process which would include maintaining a heating temperature, cooling temperature, and time, maintaining drying pressure (see [0048], [0045], [0041], [0037], see claims specifically 8 - 11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to further combine above with including manufacturing steps of for forming precipitated powders via optimized variable heating temperature, cooling temperature, time, and pressure as taught by JABIL INC., for the benefit of producing suitable polymer powders having desired melt temperatures during 3D printing (see [0006]-[0010]), for producing part with better functional/mechanical properties, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/03/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
(i) Applicant argued rejection for claims 1-7 and 17-18 as being unpatentable under 35 USC § 103 over Turan (WO 2018/206888) in view of Allen (US 7,468,405) and Monsheimer (US 2008/0116616). Applicant argued “Turan does not disclose specific mass ratios of polyamide blocks (PA) relative to polyether blocks (PE) associated with specific enthalpy values. “Allen does not disclose specific mass ratios of polyamide blocks (PA) relative to polyether blocks (PE) associated with specific enthalpy values.”
“Monsheimer does not disclose specific mass ratios of polyamide blocks (PA) relative to polyether blocks (PE) associated with specific enthalpy values.” And “Jabil does not disclose specific mass ratios of polyamide blocks (PA) relative to polyether blocks (PE) associated with specific enthalpy values.”
Examiner’s response:
Applicant’s arguments are considered, however, are not found persuasive. Claim 1 as written requires copolymer polyamide/polyether block (PEBA) having enthalpy of fusion of the polyamide block greater than or equal to 70 J/g if the weight ratio of the polyamide blocks relative to the polyether blocks of the copolymer is greater than or equal to 4. Claim 1 additionally recites alternative enthalpy of 50 j/g if the weight ratio of PA block to PE block is greater than or equal to 1 and less than 4; or 20 J/g if the weight ratio of the polyamide blocks relative to the polyether blocks of the copolymer is less than 1.
The Examiner applied primary reference, ARKEMA FRANCE, teaches a polyamide/polyether block copolymer powder (PEBA) (see pages 4, lines 9-18, page 10, lines 5-13). These copolymers have an enthalpy of fusion between 33 and 55 J/g (Table 1). The polyether blocks are PTMG blocks, the polyamide blocks are PA12, PA 11, or PA10.10 blocks at desired ratios (see Table 1). Additionally, ARKEMA FRANCE teaches the percentage of polyamide blocks in the copolymer is in the range of 60 to 97%, preferably 65 to 95% and the percentage of polyether blocks in the copolymer is in the range of 3 to 40%, preferably 5 to 35% (see claim 4 specifically).
ARKEMA FRANCE fail to teach PA block having high enthalpy of fusion as claimed. The Examiner applied Allen et al., which similarly teaches the claimed materials, and a method of increasing at least one of the two parameters of polyamide including its melting point and its enthalpy of melting (see abstract), for the purpose of obtaining good geometrical definition of the parts (see col 1 lines 55-60).
Allen et al. further disclose if the enthalpy of melting is too low, the energy supplied by the laser is sufficient to sinter, by thermal conduction, the powder particles close to the walls being constructed, thus the geometrical precision of the part is no longer satisfactory (see col 1 lines 55 to 65). Allen et al. teach in order to increase the enthalpy of melting, various treatments including water or steam treatment preceded by conventional methanol treatment in order to extract oligomer contained in the polyamide (see col 2 lines 45-55). The resultant polyamide block powder obtained is used for manufacturing objects via sintering of polyamide powders by melting them using radiation, and this polyamide includes PA-6, PA6,6, PA-11, and PA-12 (see col 3 lines 1-30), and furthermore, these polyamide blocks that is modified are used in combinations with polyether blocks are desired weight ratios (see col 5 lines 20-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to substitute the polyamide block (that is modified achieving higher enthalpy of melting), as taught by Allen et al. with polyamide block as taught by ARKEMA FRANCE, for the purpose of obtaining good geometrical definition of the parts (see col 1 lines 50-65). Allen et al. further states that by doing so, having higher enthalpy allows the powder to be efficiently sintered by radiation thereby providing better precision in the parts formed. One skilled in the art working in the same field of endeavor of manufacturing of objects using copolymers of powders including polyamide block and polyether blocks, would easily optimize the enthalpy of melting of polyamide blocks as claimed, as taught by the above combination, in order to achieve desired quality final products. The combination discloses both the enthalpies and the composition percentage of polyamide to polyether block as claimed.
(ii) Applicant then argued there is no teaching or suggestion to raise the enthalpy of fusion of a polyamide block of a copolymer powder containing polyamide blocks and polyether blocks. For example, there is no teaching or suggestion to raise the enthalpy of fusion of a polyamide block of a PEBA.
Examiner’s response:
Applicant’s argument is considered; however, it appears that applicant argues each reference individually as opposed to the combination. The Examiner had applied already ARKEMA FRANCE to show that taking specific amount of polyamide and polyether with an enthalpy closer to applicant’s claim is already taught, however, only failed to show exact enthalpy as claimed. The Examiner applied secondary reference to show why one ordinary skill in the art would raise the enthalpy of polyamide, thus this would also apply to PEBA as it includes a polyamide block.
(iii) Applicant argued: “There is no teaching or suggestion to raise the enthalpy of fusion of a polyamide block of a copolymer powder containing polyamide blocks and polyether blocks. For example, there is no teaching or suggestion to raise the enthalpy of fusion of a polyamide block of a PEBA. The Office cites to enthalpies of fusion of polyamides.” “Claimed Subject Matter Is More Than Optimizing Ratios” “The Art Does Not Address the Claimed Subject Matter” or “iv. “No Reason to Modify Turan Based on Allen”.
Examiner’s response: Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as this argument pertains to looking into each reference individually as opposed to looking into ARKEMA FRANCE in view of Allen, as shown above. The Examiner already presented that taking specific composition for polyamide block and polyether block for PEBA is taught by ARKEMA FRANCE. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, since Allen discloses or provides motivation for optimizing the enthalpy for polyamide, and, these polyamide blocks that is modified are used in combinations with polyether blocks are desired weight ratios (see col 5 lines 20-55). Furthermore, as provided above, Monsheimer et al. provides examples the inventive polyamide powder has markedly higher enthalpy of fusion and also higher recrystallization temperature than conventional polymer powders, with components with higher surface quality can therefore be produced, because less powder adheres to the molten regions. The recycling capability of the inventive powder is therefore likewise improved in comparison with conventional polyamide powders (see [0143]). Monsheimer et al. teach that using the powder prepared for layer-by-layer production, and the enthalpy of fusion of polyamide prepared being at least 71 J/g (see claims 54-56 specifically; [0142] table present various melt enthalpies for various polyamides). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method taught by ARKEMA FRANCE such that the enthalpy would be raised for polyamide block, as taught by Allen with desired value as taught by Monsheimer et al., for providing reasonable expectation of success in order to produce parts having good geometrical definition (see col 1 lines 50 to col 2 lines 30). Therefore, rejection is maintained final.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 7,282,551 B2, US 6,399,708 B2, US 5,648,450.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -5:00 PM).
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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743