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
Applicant's remarks filed on February 23, 2026 have been entered and considered. Claims 1 – 3 and 5 – 15 are pending and claims 14 and 15 are withdrawn. The invention as currently claimed is not found to be patentable for reasons herein below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the primary reference, Kopping, is directed to a filament comprising a core material including a ceramic material coated with a layer of shell material for use in fused filament fabrication process while independent claim 1, in contrast to Kopping is directed to a core-sheath filament for use as an adhesive. Applicant asserts that Kopping is non-analogous art since neither of the two criteria have been met for determining whether prior art is analogous.
Applicant’s claim 1 reads as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
187
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The top of page 1 of Kopping et al. (WO 2018/108639) states:
PNG
media_image2.png
265
820
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The bottom of page 5 of Kopping et al. (WO 2018/108639) states:
PNG
media_image3.png
157
777
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The top of page 6 of Kopping et al. (WO 2018/108639) states:
PNG
media_image4.png
257
793
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The underlined sections of Kopping et al. distinctly discusses core/sheath filaments where a tacky or extremely tacky core material is present. It should be noted that Applicant’s claim is only directed to a sheath-core filament where the language does not require any particular function or use and has open language which does not exclude any additional materials such as a ceramic. Thus, Kopping et al. meets at least the first criteria of analogous art.
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 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.
Claims 1 – 3 and 5 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopping et al. (WO 2018/108639) in view of Polyisobutylene as a base polymer and modifier for adhesives and Sealants (April 2007) and further in view of Bae et al. (WO 2016/080573).
Kopping is directed to a filament comprising a core of ceramic material coated with a layer of thermoplastic polymer to be used in fused filament fabric processes to make three-dimensional objects (page 1, Description).
As to claim 1, Kopping teach that the filament has a core material that is tacky or extremely tacky (page 6, paragraph 1); the Examiner equates this to Applicant’s adhesive core. The core material can comprise component b2 or binder which is made from at least one polyolefin and mixtures of more than one polyolefin (page 13, paragraph 6). Preferably, the polyolefin can be selected from materials such as polyisobutylene (page 14, paragraph 1). As to the coating/sheath of the filament of Kopping, teaches component d of the shell is made from at least one thermoplastic polymer selected from the group including polyolefins (PE) (page 23, paragraph 8). Kopping implies that the sheath/coating is non-tacky as Kopping indicates that “without the presence of the shell material (SM) block the feeder mechanism” (page 6, paragraph 1).
Kopping is silent to the molecular weight of the polyisobutylene and does not teach that the weight average molecular weight is 150,000 to 790,000 grams per mole as required by claim 1. While Kopping does teach that component b2 can be mixtures of two or more polyolefins, specifically polyisobutylene, Kopping fail to teach that the polyisobutylene polymer comprises a first polyisobutylene polymer having a weight average molecular weight of 3000000 grams per mole (g/mol) to 2500000 g/mol and a second polyisobutylene polymer having a weight average molecular weight of less than 300000 g/mol as required by claim 6.
Polyisobutylene as a base polymer and modifier for adhesives and Sealants (April 2007) teach that polyisobutylene can be used as a base polymer or a modifier in a variety of adhesive or sealant applications (page 1). Polyisobutylene (PIB) can range in varying average molecular weights varying from soft, tacky, viscous liquid to a tough elastomeric solid (page 2). Low molecular weight PIBS are very tacky and the tack is permanent and they are often used in pressure sensitive adhesive formulations (page 2). Higher molecular weight grades are rubber-like solids and have good physical properties. PIB adhesives are generally used as both base polymers and additives in pressure sensitive adhesives (page 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to customize the polyisobutylene of Kopping including a relatively higher and relatively lower molecular weight PIB with a resulting weight average molecular weight of 150,000 grams per mole to 790,000 grams per mole as required by claims 1 and 6 to create a filament for a fused fabric process having suitable balance of tackiness, physical properties and stability.
Kopping in view of Polyisobutylene as a base polymer and modifier for adhesives and Sealants additionally does not teach that the sheath has a melt-flow index of less than 15 grams per 10 minutes as required by claim 1. Kopping in view of Polyisobutylene as a base polymer and modifier for adhesives and Sealants fail to teach that the non-tacky sheath is LDPE as required by claim 2.
Bae et al. is directed to a filament composition for a 3D printer having excellent processability and mechanical properties (Abstract). Bae et al. teaches the use of LDPE which is cheap, easy to mold and has high resistance to acids, solvents, etc. Specifically, Bae et al. teach the low density polyethylene resin has preferably a density of 5 to 70g / 10 minutes of melt flow rate (pages 6 – 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use LDPE with a melt flow rate of 5 to 70 g/10 min as suggested by Bae et al. as the coating polymer of Kopping in view of Polyisobutylene as a base polymer and modifier for adhesives and Sealants motivated by the desire to use a readily moldable and cheaply available polymer that has high resistance to acids, solvents, etc. that is suitable for 3D printing applications.
As to claim 3, Kopping in view of Polyisobutylene as a base polymer and modifier for adhesives and Sealants in view of Bae et at al. is silent to the weight percent of the sheath and the core. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of the sheath relative to the core to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide stability to the fiber while allowing appropriate level of adhesion after 3-D printing. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
As to claim 5, Kopping teach that the binder B comprise 2 – 35% by weight of component b2 where b2 can comprise polyisobutylene (page 13, paragraph 5 and page 14, paragraph 1). Additionally, binder B makes up 20 – 70% by volume of the core (page 24, paragraph 6). The Examiner submits that this significant overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range.
As to claims 7 and 8, Kopping teach that the core can additionally contain at least one additive (page 22, paragraph 3) specifically antioxidants (page 22, paragraph 5) and tackifiers (page 22, paragraphs 6 – 10). The additive can be included in 0 – 20% by volume of the core (page 22, paragraph 2). Although the additive is provided in units of volume vs. weight percent as claimed, the claimed range would significantly overlap with the range in the prior art. Kopping teach that the tackifier are polymerized from C9 monomers, preferably aromatic and C5 monomers preferable aliphatic (page 22, paragraphs 1 – 3).
As to claim 10, Kopping teach that the filament has a core material that is tacky or extremely tacky (page 6, paragraph 1); the Examiner equates this to Applicant’s pressure-sensitive adhesive.
As to claim 11, Kopping teach for the production of three-dimensional objects, usually filaments of thermoplastic materials, provided on a spool, are deposited layer-by- layer through a heated nozzle on a base. Therefore, the thermoplastic material is heated to a temperature past its melting and/or glass transition temperature. The thermoplastic material and the temperature gradient are selected in order enable its solidification essentially immediately upon contacting the base or a preceding layer of thermoplastic material extruded (page 1, paragraph 2). This functions as Applicant’s “adhesive composition”.
As to claims 12 and 13, Kopping in view of Polyisobutylene as a base polymer and modifier for adhesives and Sealant further in view of Bae et al. does not specifically teach that the adhesive composition has a tan delta as required in claim 12 or the static shear performance of claim 13. However, it is reasonable to expect that said properties are inherent to the product suggested by the cited prior art. Support for said expectation is found in the use of like materials (i.e. PIB as the core component, LDPE as the sheath having the claimed properties of melt flow and molecular weight) The burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties of tan delta as required in claim 12 or the static shear performance would obviously have been present once the Kopping in view of Polyisobutylene as a base polymer and modifier for adhesives and Sealant further in view of Bae et al. product is provided.
Conclusion
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 JENNIFER A BOYD whose telephone number is (571)272-7783. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm with alternating Fridays off.
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, Sri Kumar can be reached at (571) 272-7769. 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.
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner,
Art Unit 1786