Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed July 6, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Amended claim 1 now requires a Hausner ratio of less than about 1.25. Dependent claim 10 requires a Hausner ratio of from about 1.0 to about 1.25. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farrugia (US 2021/0070993) in view of Gabriel (US 2019/0160737) and Kawashima (JP 2010-090350; paragraph references to attached English language translation).
Claim 1: Farrugia discloses a process of forming an article (abstract). The process includes providing a thermally conductive polymer including a polymer matrix and a thermally conductive filler in the matrix (¶¶ 110, 113, 119, 121-122), wherein the polymer is in a form of a loose powder (¶¶ 107, 150, 153-154, 175-175), wherein the loose powder has a particle size distribution of 10 to 100 microns, which encompasses the claimed range (¶ 154), wherein the polymer has a Hausner ratio of less than about 1.25 (¶¶ 78-81, 107, 171, 173), sintering the loose powder in a sintering process to produce a 3D printed article including the polymer wherein the sintering provides sufficient energy to solidify the powder (¶¶ 4-5, 175-176).
Farrugia is silent as to the claimed melting point and crystallization point. However, in the same field of endeavor of polymer-powder selective laser sintering, Gabriel discloses PA6/PA6I/6T-carbon-fiber powder having a melting temperature of 217 C and a crystallization temperature of 175 C (¶¶ 208, 215, 223, 227; Table 6a; Example I14), with a Hausner factor of 1.24 (¶¶ 224-227; table 6b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have used Gabriel’s carbon-fiber-filled PA6/PA6I/6T composition in Farrugia’s powder-making and sintering process to obtain a reinforced polyamide article with the demonstrated sintering behavior while improving powder flow and packing.
Farrugia is also silent as to the claimed absorbance. However, in the same field of endeavor of resin-powder laser sintering, Kawashima discloses a thermally conductive polymer having an absorbance of at least 0.4 obtained by varying mica loading (¶¶ 67, 75, 79-80). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have incorporated and adjusted Kawashima’s thermally stable IR absorber in the filled polymer of Farrugia’s particle-forming process to improve CO2-laser energy utilization while limiting adverse effects from excessive additive. Kawashima identifies that tradeoff and teaches the concentration-response relationship, while Farrugia expressly teaches internal additives and IR-absorbing particles (Kawashima, ¶¶ 67, 75, 79-80; Farrugia, ¶¶ 119-122, 131).
Claim 5: Gabriel discloses providing additional thermally conductive polymer material in the form of a loose powder on top of the sintered, solidified powder (¶ 31), and sintering the loose powder of the additional thermally conductive polymer material wherein the sintering provides sufficient energy to solidify the powder (¶ 31).
Claim 6: Gabriel repeats the sequence until the 3D body is complete (¶ 31).
Claim 7: Modified Farrugia would be expected to have a melting point between about 25 C and about 50 C (Gabriel; ¶¶ 208, 215, 223 227).
Claim 8: Kawashima discloses the polymer having an absorbance of at least 0.4, which encompasses the claimed range.
Claim 9: Farrugia discloses the loose powder having a particle size distribution of 10 – 100 microns, which encompasses the claimed range (¶ 154).
Claim 10: Farrugia discloses the polymer having a Hausner ratio of from about 1 to 1.2 (¶ 171).
Claim 11: Farrugia discloses the sintering step including lasers (¶¶ 5, 175-176).
Claim 12: Farrugia discloses SLS (¶¶ 175-176).
Claim 13: Farrugia discloses the matrix being polyamide (¶¶ 110, 113).
Claim 14: Farrugia discloses the polyamide includes polyamide 6 (¶ 113).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farrugia (US 2021/0070993) in view of Gabriel (US 2019/0160737) and Kawashima (JP 2010-090350; paragraph references to attached English language translation), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Okunaka (US 2018/0223054).
Farrugia is silent as to the claimed thermal conductivity. However, in the same field of endeavor of filled thermoplastic compositions, Okunaka discloses milled pitch-based carbon fiber having a conductivity of 140 W/m/K (¶¶ 32-34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have selected Okunaka’s milled carbon-fiber grade for the carbon-fiber component of Farrugia to improve heat conduction in the printed composite, the benefit expressly taught by Okunaka (¶ 32).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY THROWER whose telephone number is (571)270-5517. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm MT M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Susan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1487. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LARRY W THROWER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights