DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 03/02/2026, claims 1, 6, 13, 15, 17, 20, 22-23, 31, 38-40, 42, 44-46, and 50-60 are pending. Claims 1, 6, 13, 15, and 22 are currently amended. Claims 2-5, 7-12, 14, 16, 18-19, 21, 24-30, 32-37, 41, 43, and 47-49 are canceled, and claims 50-60 are newly added. Claims 38-40, 42, and 44-46 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 6, 13, 15, 17, 20, 22-23, 31, and 50-60 are considered in this Office 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Table 2 lists the corresponding chemical structures of amines B1, B2, and B3. The respective structures are incorrect – B11 is missing an ethyl group, B22 has an incorrect arrangement of functional groups, B33 has an additional third amine group.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 13, 15, 17, 50-54, 59-60 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should be corrected to “by weight of the total weight of said sub-formulation ;” (line 26) and “wherein said at least one non-aromatic polyisocyanate material and said at least one aromatic polyamine material featuring an average number of amine functional groups which is 2 are selected such that” (lines 40-42).
Claim 6 should be corrected to “by weight of the total weight of the first sub-formulation” (line 4), and “by weight of the total weight of the first sub-formulation” (lines 5-6).
Claim 13 should be corrected to “, optionally, in a total amount of” (lines 4-5) and “, optionally, in a total amount of” (lines 6-7).
Claim 15 should be corrected to “by weight of the total weight of the first sub-formulation and[[/or]] the second sub-formulation, respectively” (lines 5-6).
Claim 17 should be corrected to “less than 15 centipoises
Claim 50 should be corrected to “by weight of the total weight of said sub-formulation ;” (line 19).
Claim 51 should be corrected to “by weight of the total weight of the first sub-formulation” (line 3) and “by weight of the total weight of the first sub-formulation” (line 6).
Claim 52 should be corrected to “, optionally, in a total amount of” (line 3) and “, optionally, in a total amount of” (line 5).
Claim 53 should be corrected to “by weight of the total weight of the first sub-formulation and[[/or]] the second sub-formulation, respectively” (lines 5-6).
Claim 54 should be corrected to “less than 15 centipoises
Claim 59 should be corrected to “[[a]] the heteroalicyclic non-aromatic polyisocyanate material” (line 2-3).
Claim 60 should be corrected to “[[a]] the heteroalicyclic non-aromatic polyisocyanate material” (line 2-3).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 6, 13, 15, 17, 20, 22-23, 31, and 50-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 50 recite the limitation "such that no more than 20%, by mol, of said at least one non-aromatic polyisocyanate material and said at last one aromatic polyamine material interact with one another during the dispensing" in lines 42-44 and lines 22-24, respectively. The limitation does not make sense as both claims 1 and 50 further recite that "said first sub-formulation is dispensed from a first printing head, nozzle and/or array of nozzles and said second sub-formulation is dispensed from a second printing head, nozzle and/or array of nozzles" in lines 47-49 and lines 27-29, respectively. It is unclear how the said at least one non-aromatic polyisocyanate material and said at last one aromatic polyamine material interact with each other possibly up to 20% when the two elements are dispensed from respective printing heads/nozzles/arrays of nozzles. For the purpose of examination, the limitation would be interpreted as being written including “0%” interaction.
Claims 6, 13, 15, 17, 20, 22-23, 31, and 51-60 are rejected as being dependent from claim 1 or 50.
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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.
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 1, 6, 13, 15, 17, 20, 22-23, 31, and 50-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fenn (US 20170321083 A1) in view of Fenn 681 (US 20190054681 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fenn teaches a method of additive manufacturing of a three-dimensional object which comprises, in at least a portion thereof, a polyurea-containing material [featuring an impact resistance of at least 50 J/m] ([0004] and claims 1, 4), the method comprising sequentially forming a plurality of layers in a configured pattern corresponding to the shape of the object, thereby forming the object ([0019-0023] teach depositing two coreactive components in a mixture or separately in a layerwise manner and forming successive portions or layers of an object),
wherein said formation of each of at least a few of said layers comprises dispensing a multi-part modeling material formulation which comprises a first sub-formulation comprising at least one isocyanate-containing material and a second sub-formulation comprising at least one amine-containing material ([0044] teaches that a 3D object is formed by a polyurea composition that is produced from on coreactive component comprising an isocyanate-functional prepolymer, oligomer, or monomer and another coreactive component comprising an amine such as primary or secondary amine; claims 1, 3), wherein:
said first sub-formulation comprises:
at least one non-aromatic polyisocyanate material selected from an aliphatic polyisocyanate material, an alicyclic polyisocyanate material and a heteroalicyclic non- aromatic polyisocyanate material, featuring an average number of isocyanate groups that ranges from 2 to 4, in an amount of at least 60 % by weight of the total weight of the first sub-formulation ([0045-0050]: polyisocyanate; Table 2: isocyanate component(s) of Formulations A-J comprises 100 parts of aliphatic (because of “hexamethylene” group) and/or heteroalicyclic (because of “isocyanurate” group4) polyisocyanate (formulations A-C: Desmodur XP 2410) or 60 parts or more of alicyclic polyisocyanate (because of “isophorone” group) (formulations D-J: PTMEG 2000/IPDI and/or PTMEG 650/IPDI));
and said second sub-formulation comprises
at least one aromatic polyamine material featuring secondary amines and featuring an average number of amine functional groups which is 2, [in an amount of at least 60 % by weight of the total weight of said second sub-formulation] ([0051-0053]: the amine-functional coreactive component may include primary and/or secondary amines or mixtures thereof, the amines may be monoamines or polyamines, and also may be aromatic or aliphatic, or a mixture thereof, and an example of aromatic amine such as 2,4- and/or 2,6-hexahydrotoluene diamine, 2,4- and/or 2,6-diaminotoluene and 2,4′- and/or 4,4′-diaminodiphenyl methane (i.e., with an average number of amine functional groups of 2); Table 2: amine component(s) of Formulations A-J, having one or more of amines are combined in various ratio, up to 100 parts);
wherein said at least one non-aromatic polyisocyanate material and said at least one aromatic polyamine material featuring an average number of amine functional groups which is 2 are such that no more than 20 %, by mol, of said at least one non- aromatic polyisocyanate material and said at least one aromatic polyamine material interact with one another during the dispensing ([0083]: In inkjet printing methods the at least two coreactive can be deposited using separate nozzles; of note, here, the two coreactive components would not interact each other at all (i.e., 0% by mol) during dispensing),
and wherein:
said additive manufacturing is three-dimensional inkjet printing ([0010, 0023, 0083]); and
said first sub-formulation is dispensed from a first printing head, nozzle and/or array of nozzles and said second sub-formation is dispensed from a second printing head, nozzle and/or array of nozzles ([0083]: In inkjet printing methods the coreactive components may be deposited sequentially and/or simultaneously, and the at least two coreactive can be deposited using separate nozzles).
Fenn teaches that exemplary Formulations A-J of Table 2 have one or more amine component(s) featuring an average number of amine functional groups of 2 in various ratio, up to 100 parts (Table 2), but Fenn does not specifically teach the bracketed limitation(s) as presented above, i.e., “at least 60 % by weight of the total weight of said second sub-formulation” and “a polyurea-containing material featuring an impact resistance of at least 50 J/m.” However, Fenn 681 suggest the bracketed limitation(s) as follows:
Fenn 681 teaches compositions and methods for additive manufacturing of coreactive materials including polyureas, using extrusion or inkjet printing techniques ([0001, 0117]). Fenn 681 teaches that the amine-functional coreactive component used to produce a three-dimensional polyurea object may include primary and/or secondary amines or mixtures thereof, may be monoamines or polyamines, and also may be aromatic or aliphatic, or a mixture thereof, and an example of aromatic amine such as 2,4- and/or 2,6-hexahydrotoluene diamine, 2,4- and/or 2,6-diaminotoluene and 2,4′- and/or 4,4′-diaminodiphenyl methane ([0084]), and other material properties that can be adjusted to establish properties suitable for coreactive additive manufacturing include, for example, the use of aromatic polyamines or aliphatic polyamines, the reactivity of the isocyanate and amine groups, the isocyanate to amine mix ratio, the steric hindrance of the reactants, and a combination of any of the foregoing ([0122]).
Both Fenn and Fenn 681 teaches compositions and methods for additive manufacturing of coreactive materials including polyureas (Fenn: [0001, 0004, 0010]; Fenn 681: [0001, 0117]). Although the amine component(s) of the exemplary Formulations A-J does not comprise at least one aromatic polyamine material as required in claim 1, Fenn further discloses that such combinations are tested in order to obtain/optimize desired dynamic modulus of 3D objects made from the polyurea formulations and the build capacity of the formulations ([0087-0096], Table 3), and numerous variations of the details would be evident to one of ordinary skill in the art ([0097]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing inventions to modify or substitute the aliphatic polyamine component(s) of Fenn (e.g., Table 2) with another known aromatic polyamine, which can also contribute to adjust a reaction rate of forming polyurea due to change of the reactivity of amine with isocyanate as taught by Fenn 681 in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful result of obtaining a multi-part polyurea formulation having an optimum build capability or being suitable for coreactive additive manufacturing system and thus forming a 3D printed object made of polyurea with a desired/optimized strength level in consideration of cost (Fenn 681: derived from [0054, 0084, 0122]; Fenn: derived from [0047, 0051]).
Upon the modification, through routine optimization or experimentation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing inventio to modify a content of the at least one aromatic polyamine material in the second sub-formulation within a range at least to be similar to the content of the amine component(s) as presented in Table 2 of Fenn (i.e., at most about 75 % (e.g., Formulation H, I, or J) or up to 100 % (e.g., Formulation A or F) (Fenn: Table 2, [0087-0096], Table 3, [0097]) so as to obtain a suitable formulation for coreactive additive manufacturing system (Fenn 681: [0122]).
Regarding the limitation “a polyurea-containing material featuring an impact resistance of at least 50 J/m,” the polyurea of modified Fenn is produced by the identical process as recited in claim 1. Therefore, a prima facie case of anticipation is established to the claimed property (i.e., the impact resistance) by modified Fenn. See MPEP 2112.01 I. (Where 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). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 50, Fenn teaches a method of additive manufacturing of a three-dimensional object which comprises, in at least a portion thereof, a polyurea-containing material [featuring Tg of at least 100 °C] ([0004] and claims 1, 4), the method comprising sequentially forming a plurality of layers in a configured pattern corresponding to the shape of the object, thereby forming the object ([0019-0023] teach depositing two coreactive components in a mixture or separately in a layerwise manner and forming successive portions or layers of an object),
wherein said formation of each of at least a few of said layers comprises dispensing a multi-part modeling material formulation which comprises a first sub-formulation comprising at least one isocyanate-containing material and a second sub-formulation comprising at least one amine-containing material ([0044] teaches that a 3D object is formed by a polyurea composition that is produced from on coreactive component comprising an isocyanate-functional prepolymer, oligomer, or monomer and another coreactive component comprising an amine such as primary or secondary amine; claims 1, 3), wherein:
said first sub-formulation comprises:
at least one non-aromatic polyisocyanate material selected from an aliphatic polyisocyanate material, an alicyclic polyisocyanate material and a heteroalicyclic non- aromatic polyisocyanate material, featuring an average number of isocyanate groups that ranges from 2 to 4, in an amount of at least 60 % by weight of the total weight of the first sub-formulation ([0045-0050]: polyisocyanate; Table 2: isocyanate component(s) of Formulations A-J comprises 100 parts of aliphatic (because of “hexamethylene” group) and/or heteroalicyclic (because of “isocyanurate” group5) polyisocyanate (formulations A-C: Desmodur XP 2410) or 60 parts or more of alicyclic polyisocyanate (because of “isophorone” group) (formulations D-J: PTMEG 2000/IPDI and/or PTMEG 650/IPDI));
and said second sub-formulation comprises
at least one aromatic polyamine material featuring primary amines and featuring an average number of amine functional groups which is 2, [in an amount of at least 60 % by weight of the total weight of said second sub-formulation] ([0051-0053]: the amine-functional coreactive component may include primary and/or secondary amines or mixtures thereof, the amines may be monoamines or polyamines, and also may be aromatic or aliphatic, or a mixture thereof, and an example of aromatic amine such as 2,4- and/or 2,6-hexahydrotoluene diamine, 2,4- and/or 2,6-diaminotoluene and 2,4′- and/or 4,4′-diaminodiphenyl methane (i.e., with an average number of amine functional groups of 2); Table 2: amine component(s) of Formulations A-J, having one or more of amines are combined in various ratio, up to 100 parts);
wherein said at least one non-aromatic polyisocyanate material and said at least one aromatic polyamine material featuring an average number of amine functional groups which is 2 are such that no more than 20 %, by mol, of said at least one non-aromatic polyisocyanate material and said at least one aromatic polyamine material interact with one another during the dispensing ([0083]: In inkjet printing methods the at least two coreactive can be deposited using separate nozzles; of note, here, the two coreactive components would not interact each other at all (i.e., 0% by mol) during dispensing),
and wherein:
said additive manufacturing is three-dimensional inkjet printing ([0010, 0023, 0083]); and
said first sub-formulation is dispensed from a first printing head, nozzle and/or array of nozzles and said second sub-formation is dispensed from a second printing head, nozzle and/or array of nozzles ([0083]: In inkjet printing methods the coreactive components may be deposited sequentially and/or simultaneously, and the at least two coreactive can be deposited using separate nozzles).
Fenn teaches that exemplary Formulations A-J of Table 2 have one or more amine component(s) featuring an average number of amine functional groups of 2 in various ratio, up to 100 parts (Table 2), but Fenn does not specifically teach the bracketed limitation(s) as presented above, i.e., “at least 60 % by weight of the total weight of said second sub-formulation” and “a polyurea-containing material featuring Tg of at least 100 °C.” However, Fenn 681 suggest the bracketed limitation(s) as follows:
Fenn 681 teaches compositions and methods for additive manufacturing of coreactive materials including polyureas, using extrusion or inkjet printing techniques ([0001, 0117]). Fenn 681 teaches that the amine-functional coreactive component used to produce a three-dimensional polyurea object may include primary and/or secondary amines or mixtures thereof, may be monoamines or polyamines, and also may be aromatic or aliphatic, or a mixture thereof, and an example of aromatic amine such as 2,4- and/or 2,6-hexahydrotoluene diamine, 2,4- and/or 2,6-diaminotoluene and 2,4′- and/or 4,4′-diaminodiphenyl methane ([0084]), and other material properties that can be adjusted to establish properties suitable for coreactive additive manufacturing include, for example, the use of aromatic polyamines or aliphatic polyamines, the reactivity of the isocyanate and amine groups, the isocyanate to amine mix ratio, the steric hindrance of the reactants, and a combination of any of the foregoing ([0122]).
Both Fenn and Fenn 681 teaches compositions and methods for additive manufacturing of coreactive materials including polyureas (Fenn: [0001, 0004, 0010]; Fenn 681: [0001, 0117]). Although the amine component(s) of the exemplary Formulations A-J does not comprise at least one aromatic polyamine material as required in claim 50, Fenn further discloses that such combinations are tested in order to obtain/optimize desired dynamic modulus of 3d objects made from the polyurea formulations and the build capacity of the formulations ([0087-0096], Table 3), and numerous variations of the details would be evident to one of ordinary skill in the art ([0097]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing inventions to modify or substitute the aliphatic polyamine component(s) of Fenn (e.g., Table 2) with another known aromatic polyamine, which can also contribute to adjust a reaction rate of forming polyurea due to change of the reactivity of amine with isocyanate as taught by Fenn 681 in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful result of obtaining a multi-part polyurea formulation having an optimum build capability or being suitable for coreactive additive manufacturing system and thus forming a 3D printed object made of polyurea with a desired/optimized strength level in consideration of cost (Fenn 681: derived from [0054, 0084, 0122]; Fenn: derived from [0047, 0051]).
Upon the modification, through routine optimization or experimentation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing inventio to modify a content of the at least one aromatic polyamine material in the second sub-formulation within a range at least to be similar to the content of the amine component(s) as presented in Table 2 of Fenn (i.e., at most about 75 % (e.g., Formulation H, I, or J) or up to 100 % (e.g., Formulation A or F) (Fenn: Table 2, [0087-0096], Table 3, [0097]) so as to obtain a suitable formulation for coreactive additive manufacturing system (Fenn 681: [0122]).
Regarding the limitation “a polyurea-containing material featuring Tg of at least 100 °C,” the polyurea of modified Fenn is produced by the identical process as recited in claim 1. Therefore, a prima facie case of anticipation is established to the claimed property (i.e., the Tg) by modified Fenn. See MPEP 2112.01 I. (Where 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). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claims 6 and 51, modified Fenn teaches the method of claim 1 or 50, wherein said at least one isocyanate-containing material further comprises at least one aromatic polyisocyanate material, optionally, in an amount of no more than 40 % by weight of total weight of the first sub-formulation (Fenn: [0047]); and/or at least one mono-functional isocyanate material, optionally, in an amount of no more than 40 % by weight of total weight of the first sub-formulation. Here, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the isocyanate component(s) of Fenn (e.g., Table 2) to further comprises aromatic polyisocyanates as discloses in [0047] of Fenn in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of forming a polyurea 3D object with less cost when durability is not of significant concern (Fenn: derived from [0047]). Also, of note, the further recited element(s) is/are “optional.”
Regarding claims 13 and 52, modified Fenn teaches the method of claim 1 or 50, wherein said second sub-formulation further comprises at least one non-aromatic polyamine material selected from an aliphatic polyamine material and an alicyclic polyamine material, optionally in a total amount of no more than 40 % by weight of the total weight of the second sub- formulation, and/or a mono-functional amine material, optionally in an amount of no more than 40 % by weight of the total weight of the second sub-formulation (Fenn: [0051-0056]: the amines may be monoamines or polyamines and/or mixtures thereof, and also may be aromatic or aliphatic such as cycloaliphatics). Also, of note, the further recited element(s) is/are “optional.”
Regarding claims 15 and 15, modified Fenn teaches the method of claim 1 or 50, wherein at least one of said first sub-formulation and said second sub-formulation further comprises an additional material that is non-reactive towards said at least one isocyanate-containing material and said at least one amine-containing material, optionally, in a total amount of no more than 25 % by weight of the total weight of the first sub-formulation and/or the second sub-formulation (Fenn: [0007]: combinations of polyalkenyl and polythiol or Michael addition acceptor and donor; [0070-0075]: various additives such as rheology modifiers (e.g., silica or other fillers), flow control agents, plasticizers, stabilizers, wetting agents, dispersing auxiliaries, deformers, and adhesion promoters; Table 2: B pack (for isocyanate component(s)) of Formulations B, C, and G comprises 2, 4, and 5 wt. % of the additional material, respectively; Table 2: A pack (for amine component(s)) of Formulations B-E, and G-J comprises 2-5 or 24 wt. % of the additional material). Also, of note, the further recited element(s) is/are “optional.”
Regarding claims 17 and 54, modified Fenn teaches the method of claim 15 or 53, wherein said additional material is a curable material (Fenn: [0007]: compositions comprising each or a combination of any of (polyamine and polyisocyanate), (polyalkenyl and polythiol), or (Michael addition acceptor and Michael addition donor). Fenn also teaches that the composition has a viscosity less than 30 cP ([0007, 0083] and claim 9, for example, from about 5 cP to about 15 cP), the viscosity of the coreactive components may be adjusted by changing the deposition temperature, and the coreactive components may have a viscosity and temperature profile that may be adjusted for the particular deposition method used ([0025]), and a low viscosity of thermosetting compositions can be adjusted in use of filler ([0070-0071]).
Therefore, although modified Fenn does not explicitly teach that the additional curable material features “separately” at least one of: a viscosity at room temperature of less than 15 centipoises or less than 10 centipoises and a flash point at least 10° C. higher than a temperature applied to the multi-part modeling material formulation during the method, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention the additional curable material has at most a viscosity lower than about 15 cP as recited in claim 17 because such a desired viscosity would be obtained as itself or in addition of rheology modifiers such as fillers (Fenn: derived from [0007, 0025, 0070-0071, 0083]). Also, of note, the further recited element(s) is/are “optional.”
Regarding claims 20 and 55, modified Fenn teaches the method of claim 15 or 53, wherein said additional material is a non-curable material (Fenn: [0070-0075]: various additives such as rheology modifiers (e.g., silica or other fillers), flow control agents, plasticizers, stabilizers, wetting agents, dispersing auxiliaries, deformers, and adhesion promoters). Also, of note, the further recited element(s) is/are “optional.”
Regarding claims 22 and 56, modified Fenn teaches the method of claim 1 or 50, wherein said second sub-formulation further comprises a thiol-containing material and/or a hydroxy-containing material, optionally, in a total amount of no more than 25 % by weight of the total weight of the second sub-formulation(Fenn: [0007]: combinations of polyalkenyl and polythiol or Michael addition acceptor and donor; [0031, 0035], Table 1, claims 1, 10: as saturated functional groups including thiol, hydroxyl, amine, epoxy, or a combination of any of the foregoing). Also, of note, the further recited element(s) is/are “optional.”
Regarding claims 23 and 57, modified Fenn teaches the method of claim 22 or 56, wherein said thiol-containing material and/or said hydroxy-containing material is a multi-functional material comprising an average number of thiol and/or hydroxy groups of at least 2 (Fenn: [0007, 0063-0065]: polythiols; [0060]: polyols). Also, of note, the further recited element(s) is/are “optional.”
Regarding claims 31 and 58, modified Fenn teaches the method of claim 1 or 50, wherein said dispensing is such that a mol ratio of an average number of isocyanate groups in said at least one isocyanate material and an average number of amine groups in said at least one amine-containing material is from about 1.2:1 to about 1:1.2 (Fenn: [0041]: e.g., from 1:1 to 1.5:1, or from 1.1:1 to 1:1.1).
Regarding claims 59 and 60, modified Fenn teaches the method of claim 50 or 1, wherein said at least one non-aromatic polyisocyanate material in said first sub-formulation comprises a heteroalicyclic non-aromatic polyisocyanate material (Fenn: [0046-0048] and Table 2: e.g., Desmodur XP 2410, Desmodur® N3400, isophorone diisocyanate ).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues (see pages 14-21) that modified Fenn (i.e., Fenn in view of Fenn 681) does not disclose or suggest all the limitations as recited in claim 1 or 50.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. See above, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1 and 50.
At first, it would have been obvious to combine Fenn and Fenn 681 because Fenn teaches the coreactive component of amines which react with polyisocyanates to form polyurea, such as primary or secondary, aliphatic or aromatic, and monoamines or polyamines, while Fenn 681 further suggest that such exemplary amines may be varied to achieve an object having desired properties. Both references are directed to coreactive composition(s) of making a polyurea-based object in the same field of 3D printing such as inkjet printing, providing motivation to combine their teachings.
Secondly, it would have been obvious to optimize the amount of the reactive component in the formulation (e.g., the mol % of the aromatic amine in the second sub-formulation), including amounts ranging between 0 and 100 % by weight, because optimizing the concentration of a known component to achieve desired performance is a routine matter of experimentation within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Thirdly, the recited properties (i.e., a polyurea-containing material featuring impact resistance of at least 50 J/m or Tg of at least 100 °C) do not appear to represent an unexpected result and are not commensurate in scope of the claimed limitation. Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP 716.02(d)). Furthermore, to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outsides the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960) (MPEP 716.02(d) II.).
Here, regardless of the resolution whether the recited limitations result in unexpected results, the proffered evidence (Tables 1-4 and Figures 7-8 of Instant Specification) is not commensurate in scope with the claimed limitations.
In case of the property of “the impact resistance of at least 50J/m,” Formulations 1 and 2 only represent two (2) test points and discloses the conditions of (1) 100% A1 or 100% A2 in combination of 100% B1, which are much broader than the recited conditions of (2) 60% or more of the “genus” of A1 and A2 in combination of 60% or more of the “genus” of B1. Moreover, Formulation 6, which has only 50 % of B1 (i.e., not included in the recited conditions of (2)), also represents the claimed property of “the impact resistance of at least 50J/m” (see fig. 7).
In case of the property of “Tg of at least 100 °C,” at least, Formulations 5 and 6, which have only 50 % of B2 (i.e., not included in the recited conditions of claim 50), also represent the claimed property of “Tg of at least 100 °C” (see fig. 8, Table 4). Moreover, Formulation 15, which has in total 100 % of primary aromatic diamine (i.e., satisfying the recited conditions of claim 50), does not represent the claimed property of “Tg of at least 100 °C” (see Table 4).
Thus, the claimed limitation covers a broader range of the technical features than as disclosed in Instant Specification, and the claimed ranges do not demonstrate a nexus to the alleged unexpected results.
Furthermore, the proffered results do not fully resolve whether the recited limitations results in unexpected results in the polyurea portion (Tables 1-4 and Figures 7-8 of Instant Specification). “A greater than expected result is an evidentiary factor pertinent to the legal conclusion of obviousness ... of the claims at issue.” In re Corkill, 711 F.2d 1496, 226 USPQ 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP 716.02(a) I.). “Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention, just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness thereof.” In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 538, 152 USPQ 602, 604 (CCPA 1967) (MPEP 716.02(c) II.). Formulations 1-5 represent variations in the impact resistance about between 30 J/m and 70 J/m and in Tg about between 80 °C and 180 °C (see figs. 7-8). However, it is unclear whether the test results within the ranges shows “a greater than the expected results” beyond the expected results.
Thereby, after reconsideration, claims 1 and 50 remain rejected., and dependent claims remain rejected for the same reasons presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schmidt (US 20110070387 A1) teaches that primary aliphatic amines have markedly higher reactivity towards isocyanates than do aromatic amines ([0010]).
Meckel (US 4,574,147 A) teaches that the different reactivity of the aromatic diamines is produced by steric hindrance or by deactivation with electron-withdrawing substituents (col. 9 lines 13-16).
Mowrer (US 5,760,155 A) teaches a disadvantage of using an amine cured binder is the inherent high reactivity of isocyanate, particularly aromatic isocyanate, with amine containing materials (Mowrer (US 5760155 A): col. 1 lines 44-46).
Leibig (US 20190283326 A1) teaches a method of creating a 3D object form thermoset product including a urethane and or urea-containing polymer (abstract).
Ohnishi (WO 2017130685 A1) teaches a method of producing a 3D model comprising polyurethane, polyurethane urea, or polyurea (pg. 1).
Mbodji (US 20220363806 A1) teaches a two-component polyurethane compositions for use in 3D printing (abstract, [0024]: polyurea) comprising aromatic polyamine ([0069-0072]).
Elsey (US 20150014881 A1) teaches a method for making an object (abstract) made of polymeric material such as polyurea ([0072]) with a first subunit comprising active hydrogen such as amine, thiol, and hydroxyl and a second subunit comprising a functional group which react with active hydrogen such as isocyanates ([0075, 0088, 0097, 0099]).
Lootens (US 20210363366 A1) teaches a method of applying a two-component polyurethane composition by 3D printing (abstract, [0036]: polyurea).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INJA SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1605. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 8 AM - 5 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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached on (571)270-5343. 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.
/INJA SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
1 See https://www.albemarle.com/us/en/product/ethacure-420.
2 See https://www.albemarle.com/us/en/product/ethacure-300.
3 See https://www.albemarle.com/us/en/product/ethacure-100-lc.
4 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyisocyanurate.
5 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyisocyanurate.
Prosecution Insights