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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8- 9, 11-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (US 2002/0113331 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang teaches a process for the additive manufacture of an object, the process comprising manufacturing an object by agglomeration of at least one salified monomer powder, wherein the at least one salified monomer powder is used as a raw material (see [0045] - Zhang discloses preparing polyamide 6,6 prepolymer and performing additive manufacturing in which the prepolymer material is extruded to form the 3D printed object and then afterwards is subjected to solid state conversion of the prepolymer into a polymer; additionally see [0006]-[0010], [0015]-[0043] for further details on synthesis of the nylon salt from diacid and diamines [0037]).
As for claim 9, Zhang further teaches placing the salified monomer powder in a heated chamber to a temperature below or equal to the melting temperature of the salified monomer powder (see [0045]- Zhang discloses keeping the material below melting to extrude the materials).
As for claim 11, Zhang further teaches polymerizing the salified monomer powder ([0045] discloses polymerization of the 3D printed object after it is formed; alternatively, similar to instant specification, Zhang teaches in [0035]-[0043] extrusion of strands and polymerizing each layer in the same 3D printed chamber as opposed to oven).
As for claims 12-13, Zhang further teaches step of polymerizing the salified monomer powder and the step of 3D construction are carried out simultaneously (see [0035]-[0043] states printing and polymerizing simultaneously).
As for claim 20, Zhang further teaches the salified monomer is a salt of dicarboxylic acid and one diamine (see [0045]).
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) 10, 18 and 22- 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2002/0113331 A1) in view of DSM IP ASSETS B.V (WO 2013/014236 A1; herein after “DSM”).
As for claim 10, Zhang discloses the nylon salt obtained is later used and heated in a dispensing head, ad strands of this prepolymer were extruded at 285 oC (see [0045]). Zhang teaches that final polymer conversion treatment takes place at 250 – 260 oC. Furthermore, in a different embodiment, Zhang teaches that prepolymer that is extruded, dispensed at a much lower temperature, and the build zone is maintained a temperature of 160 oC which is within the claimed range ([0049]).
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor, pertaining nylon salts, DSM teaches a plurality of types of nylon salt produced having different melting temperatures (see page 20, table 2 for properties of salt including melting temperatures), therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the process of 3D printing using nylon salt Zhang with having to optimize the heated chamber to a temperature between 150 oC – 175 oC, based on the selection of prepolymer[s] (salified monomer/ salt), as provided by DSM, for the benefit of 3D printing and polymerizing the material efficiently.
Regarding claim 18, 22, and 23, Zhang discloses all the limitations to the claim invention as discussed above, however, fail to teach wherein the salified monomer powder has a volume median diameter D50 of less than or equal to 500 um…as well as the specific carboxylic and diamine claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to diamine and dicarboxylic acid salt, DSM teaches wherein the salified monomer powder has a volume median diameter D50 of less than or equal to 500 um which are produced via mechanical agitation similar to the instant specification (see DSM page 10 lines 1-15 regarding D50 in the range of 40-400 micron; page 9, lines 1-15 similarly page 14, lines 15-25; also see page 1 lines 1-25 regarding reaction mixture using diamine and dicarboxylic acid to form salt, in solid particulate form; also see page 2-30 similarly for process of producing the salt very similar to the instant applicant’s specification).
DSM further discloses the salt is based of 1,6-hexane diamine and adipic acid (hexanedioic acid) (see page 6 lines 15-25). DSM further teaches examples of aromatic suitable dicarboxylic acid includes terephthalic acid, 2, 6-napthalene dicarboxylic acid, 4,4’-biphenyldicarboxylic acid (see page 6, lines 25-35) and suitable diamine includes 1,2-ethylene diamine, 1,11-undecane diamine, 1,12-dodecane diamine, 1,9-nonane diamine, 1, 4-butane diamine, 1,5-pentane diamine, 1,6-hexane diamine, 1,8-octane diamine as claimed (see page 7 lines 15-35).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention to modify Zhang with using diamine and dicarboxylic acid salt with D50 less than 500 microns, as taught by DSM, for the benefit of having better flow properties (see page 9, lines 25-30, and further benefit of producing nylon/polyamide dependent on required polymer properties (see page 5 lines 9-10; see page 6 lines 20-25 states additional benefit such that the combinations of these salts allow the production of polyamides with composition varying over a wide spectrum, without the need to have a large inventory on different salts or mixing in of additional amines or acids).
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2002/0113331 A1) in view of Oda et al. (US 2015/0225541 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Zhang teaches using hexamethylene diamine and adipic acid for forming the salified monomer (salt) (see [0037],[0045]), which is similar to instant specification page 6, lines 22-26 for the synthesis of polyamide 6,6. Zhang provides suggestion for use of alternative prepolymers materials for 3D printing (see [0033]-[0043] materials are not limited the above). However, Zhang fails to explicitly teach wherein the amino acid is 11-aminoundecanoic acid or 12-aminododeanoic acid.
in the same field of endeavor, Oda et al. teach polyamide composition made from salts including 11-aminodecanoic acid or 12-aminododecanoic acid (see [0167]), for the benefit of producing polyamide resin composition having desired properties (see [0001] states polyamide resin composition expressing oxygen absorption performance and method for producing the same). It would have been obvious to modify the prepolymer (diacid/diamine) as taught by Zhang with using amino acid is 11-aminoundecanoic acid or 12-aminododeanoic acid as taught by Oda et al, for the purpose of producing a materially different 3D object with improved properties (Oda et al. [0001]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 36 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Zhang discloses that “dispensed strands of material composition are deposited in multiple layers which solidify and adhere to one another to build up the object” ([0015]), however, fails to teach that the agglomeration includes depositing multiple layers of the salified monomer powders.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 8, 9, 11-13 and 20, the applicant argued 35 USC 102 rejection based on Zhang (US 2002/0113331). Applicant states that Zhang fails to disclose or suggest an additive manufacturing process starting from a powder as raw material. It was alleged by the Applicant that in the examples of Zhang the starting material is prepared from a powder, but the starting material of the additive process is a prepolymer in a fluent state (as mentioned in the claim 1). It is concluded that the preparation of a powder is like a preliminary step, implemented before the additive manufacturing process.
Examiner’s response: applicant’s claim is broad as such it does not specify that the agglomeration happens on a build surface, rather, it can happen anywhere in the process of preparing and forming 3D printing and such is interpretated during the examination. In the paragraph [0045] of Zhang, as also applied in the above rejection, the Examiner stated that first Zhang prepares the material by heating an aqueous slurry of the nylon salt at 200 oC, and then the prepolymer bulk was sized-reduced to powder form, which was later used and heated in a dispensing head (agglomerated). Strands of this prepolymer were extruded 285 oC by screw extruder onto an object build zone with Tb = 25 -75 degree Celsius. Because Zhang provides heats to the powder material during formation of the building of 3D printed object, therefore, Zhang discloses agglomeration as claimed.
Applicant argued that Zhang’s specific prescription conversion of the powder into strands of the prepolymer ([00045]) would have led an ordinary skilled artisan away from the claimed additive manufacturing process by agglomeration of a powder.
Examiner’s response: Applicant’s arguments are considered, however, are not found persuasive as applicant claim does not specify in what part of the additive manufacturing process, materials are agglomerated. The dispensing head using the powder form forming strands is part of the 3D printing process and therefore, anticipates claim as written.
Regarding claim 11, the Applicant argued that [0035]- [0043] of Zhang relates to the polymerization of the prepolymer, not of the claimed salified monomer powder.
Examiner’s response: Applicant’s argument is considered, however, is not found persuasive. Applicant claim as written includes “comprising” which is open ended, and does not preclude steps that occurs in the middles, though the materials get converted to prepolymer, it is still the salified monomer powder that gets polymerized.
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 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
Prosecution Insights