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
In view of the amendment filed 08/05/2026:
Claims 11-14 are pending.
Claims 1-10 and 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration.
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 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 11 recites the limitation “providing a composition having sufficient pseudoplasticity” in line 4. The term “sufficient” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficient” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, is there a particular particular viscosity or sag that is considered sufficient, and what is it sufficient for? Is the pseudoplasticity sufficient for forming an overhang or for preventing a relative amount of sagging? For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret said limitation at question to be a composition having a viscosity that makes the cured shaped object capable of including an overhang. However, clarification and correction is required.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al.
(US20160346997), and further in view of Alberts et al. (US20180313036).
Regarding claim 11, Lewis teaches a method for preparing a cured shaped object ([0014]
A method of making a 3D printed composite structure) capable of including an overhang where a side of the object extends beyond a side of a base of the object (see overhang in Figure 3D printed lattice structure in Figure 8; while Examiner acknowledges that the 3d printed lattice structure in Figure 8 is printed from epoxy material, Lewis teaches a polyester resin as an alternative to an epoxy resin prompting one of ordinary skill to look to polyester resins for printing the lattice structure, as also discussed in the “Response to Arguments” below) comprising steps of
- providing a composition comprising:
30-95 wt.% of a polyester ([0066] The uncured polymer resin selected for the ink
formulation may be a thermosetting polymer resin, such as an epoxy resin, a
polyurethane resin, a polyester resin, [0068] The composite ink formulation may include
the uncured polymer resin at a concentration of from about 30 wt. % to about 95 wt. %
and the filler particles at a concentration of from about 5 wt. % to about 70 wt. %),
5-70 wt.% of a solid filler ([0066] As shown by the data of FIGS. 3A and 3B, filler
particles may be incorporated into the ink formulation to alter the rheological
properties of the uncured polymer resin. They may also be used to influence the
mechanical properties of the printed composite structure, as discussed further below,
[0073], [0068] The composite ink formulation may include the uncured polymer resin at
a concentration of from about 30 wt. % to about 95 wt. % and the filler particles at a
concentration of from about 5 wt. % to about 70 wt. %),
0-20 wt.% of a diluent ([0072] In some cases, a solvent such as acetone may be
added to the composite ink formulation. The solvent may be effective in lowering the
viscosity of the ink formulation prior to deposition… The solvent may have a
concentration of from 0 wt. % to about 20 wt. % in the composite ink formulation), and
0-5 wt.% of a stabilizer ([0067] The latent curing agent used in the ink
formulation prevents premature curing of the polymer resin, [[0068] The latent curing
agent may be present in the ink formulation at a concentration of from greater than 0
wt. % to about 5 wt. %)
- extruding the composition through a printer nozzle to form a layer of the composition in a desired shape ([0023] FIG. 2A shows an exemplary 3D printing process where a composite ink formulation is extruded through a nozzle to form a filament that is deposited on a substrate),
- repeating the extruding step on or more times and building up the formed layers onto
each other to form a shaped object ([0090] the printed composite structure may be fabricated from a continuous filament in a layer by layer deposition process, each cell wall may have a size and shape defined by a stack of layers of the continuous filament),
and
- subjecting the shaped object to a curing step to form the cured shaped object, wherein
the curing step takes place during and/or after the extrusion step ([0098] The composite
ink formulation may be cured, preferably after deposition, to form the polymer composite, where the high aspect ratio particles have a predetermined orientation therein).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the diluent of Lewis with a concentration of 20
wt.%, as taught by Lewis, since the diluent concentration has a known benefit of effectively
lowering the viscosity of the formulation prior to deposition which enables higher printing
speeds and a reduced propensity for the extruded filament to curl against the nozzle during
deposition (see [0072] of Lewis).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the 3D printed lattice structure of Lewis, as demonstrated in Figure 8, be made from a polyester resin, such that the cured shaped object of Lewis is capable of including an overhang where a side of the object extends beyond a side of a base of the object, since Lewis teaches a polyester resin as an alternative to an epoxy resin prompting one of ordinary skill to look to polyester resins for printing the lattice structure.
However, Lewis fails to teach the polyester is derived from an aliphatic polyol with 2-15
carbon atoms and an aliphatic polycarboxylic acid with 3 to 15 carbon atoms, the polyester
having an extent of polymerization, which is a ratio of a fraction of functional groups that have reacted to a maximum of those functional groups that can react, of at least 0.2 and at most 0.6.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to forming shaped objects from heat-stable compositions based on biobased fossil-free components, and in the field reasonably pertinent to the problem of forming shaped objects with good heat stability from a biobased, fossil-free, renewable, recyclable, and/or biodegradable composition (see “Response to Arguments” below), Alberts teaches a polyester derived from an aliphatic polyol with 2-15 carbon atoms and an aliphatic polycarboxylic acid with 3 to 15 carbon atoms (Abstract: the polyalcohol is selected from one or more of glycerol, sorbitol, xylitol, mannitol, 1,2-propane diol, 1,3-propane diol, and 1,2-ethane diol, in particular glycerol. The polyacid preferably is an aliphatic diacid or triacid with 3-15 carbon atoms. Examples of suitable acids include citric acid, succinic acid, and itaconic acid), the polyester having an extent of polymerization, which is a ratio of a fraction of functional groups that have reacted to a maximum of those functional groups that can react, of at least 0.2 and at most 0.5 ([0037] The degree of polymerization for the prepolymer may be in the range of… 20-50 wt. %). The polyester does not contain aromatic structures or N or S heteroatoms, such that it shows a clean burning profile and is suitable for disposal as organic waste ([0006]). Further, the degree of polymerization will determine the composition viscosity ([0037]), and the degree of polymerization maintains a liquid polymer ([0033]) and allows for filler material to be incorporated without miscibility problems ([0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the polyester of Lewis be derived
from an aliphatic polyol with 2-15 carbon atoms and an aliphatic polycarboxylic acid with 3 to
15 carbon atoms, as taught by Alberts. The polyester of Alberts has a known benefit of showing
a clean burning profile, and of being suitable for disposal as organic waste.
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the polyester of Lewis modified with Alberts have an extent of polymerization of at most 0.5, as taught by Alberts, since the
degree of polymerization is correlated to the composition viscosity, and one of ordinary skill
would be motivated to maintain a liquid polymer that allows for filler material to be
incorporated without miscibility problems.
Further, Lewis fails to teach the diluent comprising at least 50 wt.% of water.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to forming shaped objects from heat-stable compositions based on biobased fossil-free components, and in the field reasonably pertinent to the problem of forming shaped objects with good heat stability from a biobased, fossil-free, renewable, recyclable, and/or biodegradable composition (see “Response to Arguments” below), Alberts teaches a molding composition with a diluent that reduces the composition viscosity ([0035] If so desired, a solvent may be present in the reaction mixture during the manufacture of the prepolymer to result in a less viscous product), where the diluent is water ([0035] Although other polar solvents can also be used, the use of water is preferred for environmental and cost reasons). Water is used as a diluent for environmental and cost reasons ([0035] the use of water is preferred for environmental and cost reasons).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the diluent in the composition of
Lewis comprise at least 50 wt.% of water for environmental and cost reasons.
Regarding claim 12, Lewis modified with Alberts teaches the method according to claim
11. Further, Lewis teaches wherein a separate curing step is carried out after the extrusion step
([0130] Printed composite structures were then pre-cured at 100° C. for 15 hours, cooled,
removed from the substrate, and cured for 2 hours at 220° C).
Regarding claim 13, Lewis modified with Alberts teaches the method according to claim
11. Further, Lewis teaches wherein curing is carried out at a temperature of 100° C and 220°C
([0130] Printed composite structures were then pre-cured at 100° C. for 15 hours, cooled, removed from the substrate, and cured for 2 hours at 220° C).
Regarding claim 14, Lewis modified with Alberts teaches the method according to claim
11. However, Lewis fails to teach wherein the cured shaped object has an extent of
polymerization, determined gravimetrically, of at least 0.5 and/or a water content of below 10
wt.%.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to forming shaped objects from heat-stable compositions based on biobased fossil-free components, and in the field reasonably pertinent to the problem of forming shaped objects with good heat stability from a biobased, fossil-free, renewable, recyclable, and/or biodegradable composition (see “Response to Arguments” below), Alberts teaches wherein the cured shaped object has an extent of polymerization, determined gravimetrically ([0037] The degree of polymerization for the prepolymer… calculated on the basis of the weight loss of the mixture), of at least 0.7 ([0067]). A degree of polymerization of at least 0.7 indicates the polymer has solidified ([0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the cured shaped object of Lewis
modified with Alberts have an extend of polymerization of at least 0.7, as taught by Alberts,
since one of ordinary skill would be motivated to achieve a solidified polymer when the shaped
object is cured for mechanical integrity purposes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Alberts is not related to the specific field of endeavor that is addressed by the present claims (see pg. 7-9 of Remarks), Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Applicant’s disclosure recites “a composition which is can be processed through 3D printing to form a shaped object which is based on a thermosetting polymer and thus shows good heat stability” in [0003] of the PgPub (US20230348710A1), the disclosure also recites “It is particularly attractive for such a composition to be based on biobased fossil-free components” in [0003], such that one of ordinary skill would look to compositions based on biobased fossil-free components, including the composition of Alberts that takes on an extrudate form.
Further, Alberts is in the field reasonably pertinent to the problem of forming shaped objects with good heat stability from a biobased, fossil-free, renewable, recyclable, and/or biodegradable composition (see Alberts [0090] It has been found that the composite material of the present invention is particularly attractive in applications where fire-hazards may exist and claim 5).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Examiner has not established that a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention (see pg. 9-11 of Remarks), Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that Lewis does not exemplify any shaped objects made from polyester-based rains or indicate whether polyester-based resins could be 3D printed to form complex shapes (see paragraph 2 on pg. 10 of Remarks) and that Lewis only discloses examples based on epoxy resin where epoxy resins cannot be compared to polyester resins or predictive of polyester resin behavior in forming 3D structures (see paragraph 2 on pg. 11 of Remarks). However, Lewis teaches the composite ink formulation can maintain a filamentary shape and span large gaps without sag after being extruded through a nozzle (see [0056]), and a storage modulus, G’, is calculated for a filament to span a given distance with less than 5% sag. The equation for determining G’ depends on material factors such as mass density ([0063]). In view of the teachings of Lewis, one of ordinary skill would look to rheologically tailoring the ink composition to produce three-dimensional structures with less than 5% sag.
While Examiner agrees that Lewis does not teach any examples made from polyester-based resins, Lewis does teach the uncured resin may be a thermosetting polymer resin, such as an epoxy resin, a polyurethane resin, a polyester resin, a polyimide resin, or a polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) resin that undergoes a cross-linking process when cured ([0066]), prompting one of ordinary skill to look to polyester as an alternative to epoxy for forming the three-dimensional structures from rheologically tailored ink compositions.
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 ARIELLA MACHNESS whose telephone number is (408)918-7587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:30-2:30 PT.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/ARIELLA MACHNESS/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights