DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending, and claims 1-6 and 16-20 are currently under review.
Claims 7-15 are withdrawn.
Claims 17-20 are newly added.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/09/025 has been entered.
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 and 16-20 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation of “the latex particles comprising…”, and the claim also recites that the binder agent is “consisting of…” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Specifically, it is unclear as to whether the latex particles can include non-recited elements or not. The examiner interprets the claim scope to omit all non-recited elements.
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:
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 16-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hearon et al. (CA3054300) in view of Kato et al. (US 5,077,165) and Kojima et al. (US 2016/0160021).
Regarding claim 1, Hearon et al. discloses a curable formulation which can be further processed by sintering [p.2-3, p.77-79], which meets the claimed binder agent for printing a three-dimensional green body object because one of ordinary skill would recognize a three-dimensional green object is further processed by sintering/melting/fusing/etc. Hearon et al. further teaches that the formulation includes:
water and an organic solvent [p.78]
an epoxy-based constituent such as glycerol diglycidyl ether among other options, which meets the limitation of a glycidyl compound having two or more groups per molecule [p.49]
oligomeric precursors of methacrylated co-monomers including methacrylic acid and electron rich monomers including vinyl ethers and styrene, which meets the limitation of latex particles comprising polymerized monomers including first and second monomers as claimed [p.3-4, 56-57]
Since Hearon et al. is silent regarding any further necessary required elements, the examiner considers the disclosure of Hearon et al. to meet the claimed recitation of “consisting of…”
Hearon et al. does not expressly teach that the solvent is only a single organic solvent having a composition and concentration as claimed. Kojima et al. discloses that it is known to utilize a single organic solvent such as 1,2-butanediol in an amount of 10 to 50 weight percent in addition to water as a solvent in a binder formula for additive manufacturing to allow for control of jetting stability/viscosity and environmental hazardousness [0023-0028]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the formulation of Hearon et al. by utilizing the composition and concentration of only a single type of organic solvent for the aforementioned benefit expressly taught by Kojima et al. The examiner notes that the overlap between the range of Kojima et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Hearon et al. and Kojima et al. do not expressly teach the claimed latex particles having a first monomer content. Kato et al. discloses a lithographic printing precursor (ie. binder) which has beneficial static properties and photosensitivity via a compositional ratio of 5 g methyl methacrylate to 0.1 g of acrylic acid, which overlaps with the claimed range of first monomer content of 0.1 to 15 weight percent [col.1 ln.5-12, col.3 ln.8-18, col.19 ln.65 to col.21 ln.5, col.49, ln.3-10]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the formulation of Hearon et al. and Kojima et al. by utilizing the monomer concentration of Kato et al. for the aforementioned benefit. The examiner notes that the overlap between the range of Kato et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned prior art discloses the binder of claim 1 (see previous). Hearon et al. further teaches the use of control agents to limit the molecular weight of the macromolecules and a cured molecular weight of 5,000 to 5,000,000 g/mol, which therefore requires a precursor oligomer length of less than 2,500 g/mol, which overlaps with the claimed the glycidyl compound molecular weight range [p.23-24, p.55]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 3, the aforementioned prior art discloses the binder of claim 1 (see previous). As stated above, Hearon et al. discloses glycerol diglycidyl ether [p.49].
Regarding claim 4, the aforementioned prior art discloses the binder of claim 1 (see previous). Hearon et al. further teaches that the amount of epoxy constituents can be about 1 to 25 weight percent, which overlaps with the claimed range [p.50]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 5, the aforementioned prior art discloses the binder of claim 1 (see previous). As stated above, Hearon et al. discloses glycerol methacrylic acid among others [p.3-4, 56-57].
Regarding claims 16-17, the aforementioned prior art discloses the binder of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the organic solvent inclusion range of Kojima et al. and epoxy range of Hearon et al. above further overlap with the claimed ranges. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 19-20, the aforementioned prior art discloses the binder of claim 17 (see previous). As stated above, Hearon et al. discloses glycerol diglycidyl ether [p.49].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hearon et al. (CA3054300) and others as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kasperchik et al. (WO2018156938).
Regarding claim 6, the aforementioned prior art discloses the binder of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach a latex concentration range as claimed. Kasperchik et al. discloses that it is known to limit latex polymer particles in a binder for additive manufacturing to range from about 5 to 50 weight percent [0022]. The examiner notes that all of the claimed features are disclosed in the prior art, although not necessarily in a single reference, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the features disclosed in the prior art to achieve the predictable result of a binder composition (disclosed by Hearon et al. and others) having a particular latex particle concentration (disclosed by Kasperchik et al.) as would have been desired by one of ordinary skill depending on various binder properties (ie. binding, viscosity,etc.). See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The examiner notes that the overlap between the latex range of Kasperchik et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and also to overcome the previous 112(b) rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 18 recites a particular ratio of latex particles which is not disclosed in the prior art. Therefore, there is no prior art of record that teaches or suggests the claimed features.
Response to Arguments
The previous 103 rejections made in view of Morris et al. and Kasperchik et al. (US 2021/0187612) have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734