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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 17, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 13-18 and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended claim 1 requires the coater, the print head and the sintering unit sequentially travel over the construction field in an X-direction, a heater is in the coater, and the sintering unit includes a sintering radiator providing a wavelength spectrum having a width of up to 0.2 microns. Applicant points to paragraphs 14, 21-24, 30, 47, 66-67, 108 and 139-140, and figure 5 of the instant application for support; however, there is no support for these limitations in the cited paragraphs or anywhere in the application as filed.
Amended claim 22 requires the coater, the print head and the sintering unit sequentially travel over the construction field in an X-direction, and the sintering unit includes a sintering radiator providing a wavelength spectrum having a width of up to 0.2 microns. Applicant points to paragraphs 14, 21-24, 30, 47, 66-67, 108 and 139-140, and figure 5 of the instant application for support; however, there is no support for these limitations in the cited paragraphs or anywhere in the application as filed.
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 1-9, 11, 13-15, 17 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Abbott et al. (US 2017/0361505), as evidenced by Simha et al. (“Polyamide 12 Materials Study of Morpho-Structural Changes during Laser Sintering of 3D Printing” Polymers (Basel) 2021 Mar 6;13(5):810), in view of Wang et al. (US 2002/0090313).
Claim 1: Abbott et al. discloses a method of applying a particulate construction material to a construction field in a defined layer using a coater, wherein the coater includes the particulate construction material with the coater as the coater applies the material to the construction field while the coater is rolling over the construction field (¶ 19; fig. 1); heating the applied particulate construction material to a temperature in a sintering window below a melting temperature of the particulate construction material and above a recrystallization temperature of the particulate construction material (¶ 12-14); selectively applying a liquid absorber with a print head to the heated particulate construction material (¶¶ 21-22); inputting energy with a sintering unit (¶ 11) to the applied particulate construction material including areas printed with absorber and areas not printed with absorber, resulting in selective sintering of the areas printed with absorber, at a sintering temperature above the melting temperature of the particulate construction material, wherein the temperature of the particulate construction material in areas not printed with absorber remains in the sintering window (¶¶ 22-23); lowering the construction field by one layer thickness (¶¶ 19); and repeating the applying, printing, inputting and lowering steps until a part is produced and the temperature of the particulate construction material in areas not printed with absorber and in areas printed with absorber “is heated to and maintained at temperature just below its coalescing temperature” (¶ 12; and nylon 12 “pre-heated to about 150C”, and “the pre-heating temperature usually will be 20C to 50C below the melting point” which overlap the claimed endpoint (¶¶ 20,30) – see Simha et al. teaching that the crystallization temperature of nylon 12 is about 150C (p. 12)) while the part is produced (¶¶ 24), wherein the step of inputting energy is effected by monochromatic radiation (¶ 23), wherein the coater, print head and sintering unit sequentially travel over the construction field in an x-direction (¶¶ 33-34).
Moreover, absent evidence of unexpected results obtained from heating to the claimed temperature range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have selected a suitable temperature to effectively enhance the speed of printing, the temperature being a result effective variable routinely optimized by those of skill in the art, and explicitly recognized as such by Abbott et al. (¶¶ 20, 26). The optimization of a range or other variable within the claims that flows from the “normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known” is prima facie obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (determining where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges the optimum combination of percentages lies is prima facie obvious). The discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is usually obvious. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (C.C.P.A. 1980) (“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.”). See also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘[I]t is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’” (quoting Aller, 220 F.2d at 456)); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (finding no clear error in Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences’ conclusion that the amount of eluent to be used in a washing sequence was a matter of routine optimization known in the pertinent prior art and therefore obvious).
Abbott et al. discloses preheating the build material in the coater, but is silent as to the coater including a heater. However, Wang et al. teaches installing strip heaters 35 and 36 on additive manufacturing coaters ensure particulate construction material is preheated to a required temperature (¶ 51; fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have included a heater in the coater of Abbott et al. to ensure particulate construction material is preheated to a required temperature, as taught by Wang et al.
Claim 2: Abbott et al. discloses an overhead radiator used for basic heating and a sintering radiator used to heat the printed areas to a temperature above the melting temperature, wherein the overhead radiator is positioned at an elevation above the coater (¶¶ 12, 20; fig. 1).
Claim 3: Abbott et al. discloses the sintering radiator having a wavelength for heating the printed areas to a temperature above the melting temperature and a wavelength for heating the unprinted areas to a temperature above the recrystallization temperature (¶¶ 12-14).
Claims 4-5: Abbott et al. discloses the radiators are static (¶ 20).
Claim 6: Abbott et al. discloses adjusting power and regulating heat (¶ 38).
Claim 7: Abbott et al. discloses selective heating by selective activation and deactivation of sources of radiation performed during a pass over the construction surface (¶ 38).
Claim 8: Abbott et al. discloses selective activation and deactivation of stationary sources of radiation being performed (¶ 20).
Claim 9: Abbott et al. discloses the absorbing being liquid (¶ 26).
Claim 11: Abbott et al. discloses the melting temperature of the material being 185C (¶ 30).
Claims 13-14: Abbott et al. discloses heating taking place such that only the areas printed with absorber connect by partial melting and sintering (¶¶ 11-12); the construction material is in the form of a powder (¶ 19); the absorber including radiation-absorbing components (¶¶ 21-22); and the temperatures of the construction field and material being controlled (¶¶ 12-14).
Claim 15: Abbott et al. discloses the liquid being selectively applied by a print head (¶ 15).
Claim 17: Abbott et al. discloses the printhead being adjustable and the particulate construction material is selectively solidified and sintered(¶¶ 11, 34).
Claim 21: Abbott et al. discloses the energy input of printed areas having a wavelength width of 100 to 200 nm (claim 14).
Claim 22: Abbott et al. discloses a method of applying a particulate construction material to a construction field in a defined layer using a coater (¶ 19; fig. 1); heating the applied particulate construction material to a temperature in a sintering window below a melting temperature of the particulate construction material and above a recrystallization temperature of the particulate construction material (¶ 12-14); selectively applying a liquid absorber with a print head to the heated particulate construction material (¶¶ 21-22); inputting energy with a sintering unit (¶ 11) to the applied particulate construction material including areas printed with absorber and areas not printed with absorber, resulting in selective sintering of the areas printed with absorber, at a sintering temperature above the melting temperature of the particulate construction material, wherein the temperature of the particulate construction material in areas not printed with absorber remains in the sintering window (¶¶ 22-23); lowering the construction field by one layer thickness (¶¶ 19); and repeating the applying, printing, inputting and lowering steps until a part is produced and the temperature of the particulate construction material in areas not printed with absorber and in areas printed with absorber “is heated to and maintained at temperature just below its coalescing temperature” (¶ 12; and nylon 12 “pre-heated to about 150C”, and “the pre-heating temperature usually will be 20C to 50C below the melting point” which overlap the claimed endpoint (¶¶ 20,30) – see Simha et al. teaching that the crystallization temperature of nylon 12 is about 150C (p. 12)) while the part is produced (¶¶ 24), wherein the step of inputting energy is effected by monochromatic radiation (¶ 23), wherein the coater, print head and sintering unit sequentially travel over the construction field in an x-direction and the coater includes a pair of walls spaced apart in the x-direction (¶¶ 33-34).
Moreover, absent evidence of unexpected results obtained from heating to the claimed temperature range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have selected a suitable temperature to effectively enhance the speed of printing, the temperature being a result effective variable routinely optimized by those of skill in the art, and explicitly recognized as such by Abbott et al. (¶¶ 20, 26). The optimization of a range or other variable within the claims that flows from the “normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known” is prima facie obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (determining where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges the optimum combination of percentages lies is prima facie obvious). The discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is usually obvious. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (C.C.P.A. 1980) (“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.”). See also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘[I]t is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’” (quoting Aller, 220 F.2d at 456)); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (finding no clear error in Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences’ conclusion that the amount of eluent to be used in a washing sequence was a matter of routine optimization known in the pertinent prior art and therefore obvious).
Abbott et al. discloses material layering device 20 as being a blade or roller (¶¶ 33-34, figs. 1-2), but is silent as to the wall angles. However, there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent (see Eskimo Pie Corp. vs. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23 and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have used a coater having any shape that effectively allowed for application of particulate construction material.
Claim 26: Abbott et al. discloses the sintering radiator including a monochromatic laser and the absorber absorbs at a wavelength of the radiator (¶ 38).
Claim 27: Abbott et al. discloses the material being a polymer (¶¶ 40-41).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott et al. (US 2017/0361505), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of in view of Hopkinson et al. (US 2014/0314613).
Abbott et al. is silent as to using greyscale values to regulate the amount of absorber. However, Hopkinson et al. discloses a method of producing 3D molded parts including applying a particulate construction material onto a construction field in a defined layer using a coater (claim 1), selectively printing an absorber (claim 25), inputting energy for selective melting of areas printed with absorber at a sintering temperature above the melting temperature of the material (¶¶ 121-123), lowering the construction field by one layer thickness (¶ 153), and repeating the applying, printing, inputting and lowering steps until a part is produced (claim 1), wherein the energy input of printed areas is effected by means of radiation (¶ 170), and using greyscale values to regulate the amount of absorber (¶ 143). As taught by Hopkinson et al., using greyscale to specify the amount of radiation absorbed allows for any desired radiation intensity profiles over the surface portion of the layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have included greyscale values in the method of Abbott et al. to provide any desired radiation intensity profiles over the surface portion of the layer, as taught by Hopkinson et al.
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Abbott et al. (US 2017/0361505), as evidenced by Simha et al. (“Polyamide 12 Materials Study of Morpho-Structural Changes during Laser Sintering of 3D Printing” Polymers (Basel) 2021 Mar 6;13(5):810), as applied to claims 1 and 22 above, in view of Buller et al. (US 2015/0367447) and Wang et al. (US 2002/0090313).
Claims 23-24: Abbott et al. discloses preheating the build material (¶ 20), but is silent as to the coater preheating the material. However, Buller et al. teaches additive manufacturing coaters of a variety of shapes can effectively apply particulate construction material to a construction field (figs. 12A-F, figs. 14A-D; ¶¶ 280-281), and Wang et al. teaches installing strip heaters 35 and 36 on additive manufacturing coaters ensure particulate construction material is preheated to a required temperature (¶ 51; fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have substituted the roller coater of Abbott et al. for a coater having a shape that allows for strip heater installation to ensure particulate construction material is preheated to a required temperature.
Claim 25: Buller et al. discloses a direction of travel of the coater being in an X-direction and a vertical direction is a Z-direction, wherein the coater has a first wall and a second wall, wherein the first wall and the second wall are generally perpendicular to an XZ plane and are spaced apart in a direction of travel of the coater, wherein a plane of the first wall and a plane of the second wall form an acute angle greater than 0° (figs. 12A-F, figs. 14A-D); and Wang et al. discloses a direction of travel of the coater being in an X-direction and a vertical direction is a Z-direction, wherein the coater has a first wall and a second wall, wherein the first wall and the second wall are generally perpendicular to an XZ plane and are spaced apart in a direction of travel of the coater, wherein a plane of the first wall and a plane of the second wall form an acute angle greater than 0° (fig. 2).
Claims 1-9, 11, 13-15, 17, 21 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Buller et al. (US 2015/0367447) in view of Abbott et al. (US 2017/0361505), as evidenced by Simha et al. (“Polyamide 12 Materials Study of Morpho-Structural Changes during Laser Sintering of 3D Printing.” Polymers (Basel). 2021 Mar 6;13(5):810).
Claim 1: Buller et al. discloses a method of producing a 3D molded part (abstract). The method includes applying a particulate construction material to a construction field in a defined layer by means of a coater, wherein the coater includes the particulate construction material and applies the particulate construction material to the construction field while the coater is over the construction field (figs. 12A-F, 14A-D; ¶¶ 280-281), heating the applied particulate construction material to a temperature in a sintering window, lowering the construction field by one layer thickness, and repeating those steps until the desired 3D molded part is produced (¶¶ 209-210). Buller et al. is silent as to the claimed absorbers, temperatures and wavelengths. However, Abbott et al. discloses a method of applying a particulate construction material to a construction field in a defined layer using a coater, wherein the coater includes the particulate construction material with the coater as the coater applies the material to the construction field while the coater is rolling over the construction field (¶ 19; fig. 1); heating the applied particulate construction material to a temperature in a sintering window below a melting temperature of the particulate construction material and above a recrystallization temperature of the particulate construction material (¶ 12-14); selectively applying a liquid absorber with a print head to the heated particulate construction material (¶¶ 21-22); inputting energy to the applied particulate construction material including areas printed with absorber and areas not printed with absorber, resulting in selective sintering of the areas printed with absorber, at a sintering temperature above the melting temperature of the particulate construction material, wherein the temperature of the particulate construction material in areas not printed with absorber remains in the sintering window (¶¶ 22-23); lowering the construction field by one layer thickness (¶¶ 19); and repeating the applying, printing, inputting and lowering steps until a part is produced and the temperature of the particulate construction material in areas not printed with absorber and in areas printed with absorber “is heated to and maintained at temperature just below its coalescing temperature” (¶ 12; and nylon 12 “pre-heated to about 150C”, and “the pre-heating temperature usually will be 20C to 50C below the melting point” which overlap the claimed endpoint (¶¶ 20,30) – see Simha et al. teaching that the crystallization temperature of nylon 12 is about 150C (p. 12)) while the part is produced (¶¶ 24), wherein the step of inputting energy is effected by monochromatic radiation (¶ 23), wherein the coater, print head and sintering unit sequentially travel over the construction field in an x-direction and a heater is in the coater (¶¶ 33-34).
As taught by Abbott et al., applying the claimed absorbers, temperatures and wavelengths allows 3D objects having a variety of different colors to be manufactured (¶ 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have included the absorbers, temperatures and wavelengths of Abbott et al. in the method of Buller et al. in order to create 3D objects having a variety of colors.
Moreover, absent evidence of unexpected results obtained from heating to the claimed temperature range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have selected a suitable temperature to effectively enhance the speed of printing, the temperature being a result effective variable routinely optimized by those of skill in the art, and explicitly recognized as such by Abbott et al. (¶¶ 20, 26). The optimization of a range or other variable within the claims that flows from the “normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known” is prima facie obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (determining where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges the optimum combination of percentages lies is prima facie obvious). The discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is usually obvious. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (C.C.P.A. 1980) (“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.”). See also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘[I]t is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’” (quoting Aller, 220 F.2d at 456)); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (finding no clear error in Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences’ conclusion that the amount of eluent to be used in a washing sequence was a matter of routine optimization known in the pertinent prior art and therefore obvious).
Claim 2: Abbott et al. discloses an overhead radiator used for basic heating and a sintering radiator used to heat the printed areas to a temperature above the melting temperature, wherein the overhead radiator is positioned at an elevation above the coater (¶¶ 12, 20; fig. 1).
Claim 3: Abbott et al. discloses the sintering radiator having a wavelength for heating the printed areas to a temperature above the melting temperature and a wavelength for heating the unprinted areas to a temperature above the recrystallization temperature (¶¶ 12-14).
Claims 4-5: Abbott et al. discloses the radiators are static (¶ 20).
Claim 6: Abbott et al. discloses adjusting power and regulating heat (¶ 38).
Claim 7: Abbott et al. discloses selective heating by selective activation and deactivation of sources of radiation performed during a pass over the construction surface (¶ 38).
Claim 8: Abbott et al. discloses selective activation and deactivation of stationary sources of radiation being performed (¶ 20).
Claim 9: Abbott et al. discloses the absorbing being liquid (¶ 26).
Claim 11: Abbott et al. discloses the melting temperature of the material being 185C (¶ 30).
Claims 13-14: Abbott et al. discloses heating taking place such that only the areas printed with absorber connect by partial melting and sintering (¶¶ 11-12); the construction material is in the form of a powder (¶ 19); the absorber including radiation-absorbing components (¶¶ 21-22); and the temperatures of the construction field and material being controlled (¶¶ 12-14).
Claim 15: Abbott et al. discloses the liquid being selectively applied by a print head (¶ 15).
Claim 17: Abbott et al. discloses the printhead being adjustable and the particulate construction material is selectively solidified and sintered(¶¶ 11, 34).
Claim 21: Abbott et al. discloses the energy input of printed areas having a wavelength width of 100 to 200 nm (claim 14).
Claim 25: Buller et al. discloses a direction of travel of the coater being in an X-direction and a vertical direction is a Z-direction, wherein the coater has a first wall and a second wall, wherein the first wall and the second wall are generally perpendicular to an XZ plane and are spaced apart in a direction of travel of the coater, wherein a plane of the first wall and a plane of the second wall form an acute angle greater than 0° (figs. 12A-F, figs. 14A-D).
Claim 26: Abbott et al. discloses the sintering radiator including a monochromatic laser and the absorber absorbs at a wavelength of the radiator (¶ 38).
Claim 27: Abbott et al. discloses the material being a polymer (¶¶ 40-41).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buller et al. (US 2015/0367447) in view of Abbott et al. (US 2017/0361505), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of in view of Hopkinson et al. (US 2014/0314613).
Modified Buller et al. is silent as to using greyscale values to regulate the amount of absorber. However, Hopkinson et al. discloses a method of producing 3D molded parts including applying a particulate construction material onto a construction field in a defined layer using a coater (claim 1), selectively printing an absorber (claim 25), inputting energy for selective melting of areas printed with absorber at a sintering temperature above the melting temperature of the material (¶¶ 121-123), lowering the construction field by one layer thickness (¶ 153), and repeating the applying, printing, inputting and lowering steps until a part is produced (claim 1), wherein the energy input of printed areas is effected by means of radiation (¶ 170), and using greyscale values to regulate the amount of absorber (¶ 143). As taught by Hopkinson et al., using greyscale to specify the amount of radiation absorbed allows for any desired radiation intensity profiles over the surface portion of the layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have included greyscale values in the method of modified Buller et al. to provide any desired radiation intensity profiles over the surface portion of the layer, as taught by Hopkinson et al.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Buller et al. in view of Abbott et al. (US 2017/0361505), as evidenced by Simha et al. (“Polyamide 12 Materials Study of Morpho-Structural Changes during Laser Sintering of 3D Printing” Polymers (Basel) 2021 Mar 6;13(5):810), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Wang et al. (US 2002/0090313).
Buller et al. discloses preheating the build material in the coater (¶ 20), but is silent as to the coater including a heater. However, Wang et al. teaches installing strip heaters 35 and 36 on additive manufacturing coaters ensure particulate construction material is preheated to a required temperature (¶ 51; fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have included a heater with the coater of Buller et al. to ensure particulate construction material is preheated to a required temperature, as taught by Wang et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to claim 1, Applicant argues that Abbott does not include the construction material. This argument has been considered but is not persuasive. As the coater of Abbott spreads the construction material, it includes the construction material.
With regard to claim 1, Applicant further argues that Buller “teaches away” from the absorber remaining above the recrystallization temperature while the part is produced. This argument has also been considered but is not persuasive. For a reference to teach away, the reference must suggest that the claimed combination should be avoided as undesirable or ineffective. See In re Haruna, 249 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Buller makes no such suggestion. Buller does not constitute a teaching away from the absorber remaining above the recrystallization temperature while the part is produced because the disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage this step.
Conclusion
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