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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/26/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in the declaration and the remarks filed 8/26/2025 that Rudolph does not teach the claimed tack values. Applicant cites two figures from a document which describe the curing of the thermosetting resin used in the filament in Rudolph. Applicant argues that the figures show the polymer would not be cured at 23°C and therefore would have a higher tack value than hat is claimed in claim 1. Upon review of the cited figures and document, it does not appear that any actual tack values are measured. While it is certainly clear that the polymer would only be fractionally cured, if that, at 23°C, there is no evidence provided to suggest that the tack value would be outside the claimed range. While Examiner agrees that Rudolph does not explicitly disclose the claimed range, Rudolph does provide motivation as to why the tack value should be lower at low temperatures and higher at high temperatures such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could modify the tackiness of the filament through routine optimization. Examiner also notes that the claims do not specify if the tack value is measured at 23°C before or after curing.
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, 4-9, and 11-14 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.
Claim 1 recites “a 3D printer” in the third to last line. It is not clear if this is the same 3D printer as “a three dimensional printer” in line 1 or an additional printer. Similarly, claim 1 recites “a probe pressing load” twice and “a tack value” twice in the final three lines. It is not clear if these are all the same values or different values. These will all be interpreted to refer to either the same values or different values and the same or a different printer.
Claims 4-9 and 11-14 are rejected as being dependent from claim 1 for the same reasons as above.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishima (US 2020/0207030 or WO2019012886, refer to the US pre-grant publication for the citations within this office action, made of record on the IDS dated 11/07/2023) modified by Yan (US 2017/0266882) and Rudolph (US 2017/0341300).
Regarding claim 1, Mishima meets the claimed, A filament for a three-dimensional printer, (Mishima [0038] describes filament for a 3D printer, see [0126] and [0138] Example 3 and Table 1 describing a particular embodiment of the filament) the filament comprising a continuous reinforcing fiber impregnated with a resin composition (Mishima [0038] describes a filament with a continuous reinforcing fiber and a resin and Table 1 Example 3 describes carbon fibers) the continuous reinforcing fiber having an average fiber length of 33mm or longer (Mishima [0037] describes average fiber length of 30 mm or more) the filament having a characteristic of being solid at 25°C (Mishima [0119] describes the melting point of the resin used in Example 3 is 213°C and the fiber is carbon fiber, both of which are solid at 25°C) and a curing agent (Mishima [0106] describes a curing agent can be included when the polymer used in Example 3 is used) wherein the volume content of the continuous reinforcing fiber in the filament for the three-dimensional printer is from 10 to 65 vol% (Mishima [0127] describes the reinforcing fibers are 50% by volume.)
Mishima Example 3 uses a thermoplastic polymer rather than a thermosetting polymer and does not meet the claimed, containing a thermosetting resin wherein the thermosetting resin contains at least one from a cyanate resin, a bismaleimide triazine resin, a benzoxazine resin, an unsaturated polyester resin, and a diallyl phthalate resin however, Mishima [0048], [0061], and [0081] describe thermosetting resins including unsaturated polyester which can be used instead of thermoplastic resins.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the thermoplastic resin used in Example 3 of Mishima with an unsaturated polyester thermosetting resin as described in Mishima in order to obtain advantageous properties of thermosetting polymers such as their ability to cross-link while curing.
Mishima [0081] describes the thermosetting resins including unsaturated polyester. Although Mishima does not specify what the curing agent is, when unsaturated polyester resin and/or diallyl phthalate resin are included in the thermosetting resin, the curing agent includes organic peroxides, if this limitation is meant to convey that an organic peroxide curing agent is included only when both the unsaturated polyester and the diallyl phthalate are present, modified Mishima does not disclose both resins, would not require a peroxide, and therefore the claim is met by Mishima alone.
As the claim is currently being interpreted, the organic peroxide curing agent is required if either unsaturated polyester resin or diallyl phthalate are present. While Mishima does not disclose organic peroxides, analogous in the field of 3D printing materials, Yan also describes a polymer and fiber printing material and meets the claimed, when unsaturated polyester resin and/or diallyl phthalate resin are included in the thermosetting resin, the curing agent includes organic peroxides (Yan [0054] describes a 3D printing material with an unsaturated polyester resin and an organic peroxide curing agent.)
The courts have held that substituting one known element for another known element according to known methods, such as the thermosetting resin and curing agent described in Mishima with the unsaturated polyester resin and peroxide curing agent described in Yan, to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the resins and curing agents disclosed in Mishima with those described in Yan because they are known compounds which are capable of reacting with the thermosetting resins.
Analogous in the field of 3D printing filaments, Rudolph describes a fiber for a 3D printer with a reinforcing fiber and a thermosetting resin, although Rudolph does not explicitly disclose the exact tack value and does not explicitly describe the tack values and does not meet the claimed wherein the filament for a 3D printer has a tack value (T23) from 0 to 1 kPa measured with a probe pressing load of 20 kPa at 23°C, and has a tack value of 4 kPa or higher measured with a probe pressing load of 20 kPa at any temperature from 40 to 250°.
Analogous in the field of 3D printing filaments, Rudolph describes a fiber for a 3D printer with a reinforcing fiber and a thermosetting resin, although Rudolph does not explicitly disclose the exact tack value and does not explicitly meet the claimed, wherein the filament for a 3D printer has a tack value (T23) from 0 to 1 kPa measured with a probe pressing load of 20 kPa at 23°C, however, Rudolph [0049]-[0052] describe that it is desirable to have a low tackiness when the thermosetting resin is at a low temperature in order to improve handling. Likewise, Rudolph describes, and has a tack value of 4 kPa or higher measured with a probe pressing load of 20 kPa at any temperature from 40 to 250°, Rudolph [0049]-[0052] describe that it is desirable to have a higher tackiness when the thermosetting resin is at an increased temperature in order to improve the adhesion of the resin to the filament core.
Rudolph discloses the tackiness at any particular temperature is a result-effective variable which affects the handling of the resin material during printing. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the tack value and temperature of the polymer through routine optimization such that the tackiness is low when the temperature is lower in order to arrive at an optimized tack value for handling purposes and such that the tackiness is high when the temperature is high in order to arrive at an optimized the adhesion of the resin to the reinforcing fiber, see Rudolph [0050] and MPEP §2144.05(II)(B).
Regarding claim 4, Mishima meets the claimed, The filament for a three-dimensional printer according to claim 1, wherein the continuous reinforcing fiber has a volume content from 10 to 50 vol. % in the filament for a three-dimensional printer (Mishima [0127] describes the reinforcing fibers are 50% by volume.)
Regarding claim 5, Mishima meets the claimed, The filament for a three-dimensional printer according to claim 1, wherein the continuous reinforcing fiber has the number of single fibers of 100 or more (Mishima [0127] describes a fiber count of 13500.)
Regarding claim 6, Mishima meets the claimed, The filament for a three-dimensional printer according to claim 1, wherein the continuous reinforcing fiber is at least one selected from a carbon fiber, a glass fiber, and an aramid fiber (Mishima Table 1 Example 3 describes a carbon fiber, but [0083] also discloses glass and aramid fibers.)
Regarding claim 8, Mishima meets the claimed, The filament for a three-dimensional printer according to claim 1, wherein the thermosetting resin has a softening point of 40 to 250°C (Mishima [0081] describes the thermosetting resins most of which have a glass transition temperature in the claimed range where the material will start to soften, unsaturated polyester resins, for example, have a glass transition temperature between 80-150°C.)
Regarding claim 9, Mishima meets the claimed, The filament for a three-dimensional printer according to claim 1, wherein the thermosetting resin is solid at 25°C (Mishima [0048], [0061], and [0081] describe using thermosetting resins most of which are solid at 25°C after curing.)
Regarding claim 11, Mishima meets the claimed, The filament for a three-dimensional printer according to claim 1, wherein a shape of a cross sectional surface in a direction orthogonal to a length direction of the filament is a circular shape, a flattened shape, or an elliptical shape (Mishima Figure 1 shows a round cross section and [0056] describes the cross sectional shape can be adjusted as appropriate for the particular nozzle.)
Regarding claim 12, Mishima meets the claimed, A winding, in which the filament for a three-dimensional printer described in claim 1 is wound around a core material (Mishima [0121] describes winding a carbon fiber/polymer tape around a core material.)
Regarding claim 13, Mishima meets the claimed, A method for producing the filament for a three-dimensional printer described in claim 1, the method comprising impregnating a continuous reinforcing fiber with a thermosetting resin composition containing a thermosetting resin (Mishima [0059] describes the filament is made by impregnating a reinforcing fiber with resin and [0061] describes using a thermosetting resin.)
Regarding claim 14, Mishima meets the claimed, A method for producing a formed article, the method comprising allowing the filament for a three-dimensional printer described in claim 1 to be discharged from a nozzle of a three-dimensional printer onto a substrate, so as to produce a three-dimensional shaped object, (Mishima [0041]-[0043] describes discharging the filament from the 3D printer onto the substrate via a nozzle thereby forming an object) and heating the three- dimensional shaped object (Mishima [0046] describes heating the filament after discharge.)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishima modified by Yan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sands (WO2017142867.)
Regarding claim 7, Mishima describes a number average molecular weight but does not explicitly meet the claimed, The filament for a three-dimensional printer according to claim 1, wherein the thermosetting resin has a weight average molecular weight from 200 to 50000
Analogous in the field of 3D printing, Sand meets the claimed, The filament for a three-dimensional printer according to claim 1, wherein the thermosetting resin has a weight average molecular weight from 200 to 50000 (Sands page 21 lines 30-33 describe the molecular weight can be adjusted to control the flow or fusion of the thermosetting resin and Sands page 28 lines 5-16 describe a thermosetting polymer used in extrusion 3D printing with a molecular weight of 41,000 Daltons.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the molecular weight of the thermosetting resin through routine optimization in order to optimize the flow and fusion of the resin, see Sands page 21 lines 30-33 and page 28 lines 5-16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA BARTLETT whose telephone number is (571)272-4953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm EST.
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, 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.
/V.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744