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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendment filed 02/11/2026:
Claims 11-14 are pending.
Claims 1-10 and 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration.
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) 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).
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 polyester-based composite for shaping
applications ([0074]- [0075]), 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 polyester-based composite for shaping
applications ([0074]- [0075]), 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 polyester-based composite for shaping
applications ([0074]- [0075]), 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
The Affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 02/11/2026 has been fully considered but is not found persuasive. Specifically, the Affidavit is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 11-14 based upon 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed in the Office Action mailed 08/12/2025, and as set forth in the current Office Action because:
Demonstrating that one particular composition and example, as tested in the Affidavit, is not capable of being printed does not preclude the entire breadth of compositions taught by Alberts from being capable of being printed.
Further, the Affidavit discusses the compositions formed into cylinders, which were allowed to stand (see pg. 2 of Affidavit). However, the Affidavit fails to disclose the manner in which the compositions were formed into cylinders. It is unclear whether the compositions were extruded through a printer nozzle to form the cylinders, and whether the cylinders were subjected to curing during and/or after extrusion.
Lewis teaches optimizing a viscosity of the composition (see [0072] of Lewis) and extrusion conditions such as curing of the extruded composition (see [0125] of Lewis), and Alberts teaches that it is within the scope of one of ordinary skill to determine a suitable composition viscosity by considering the type of mixing, the nature and amount of filler, and the nature and amount of polymer ([0034] of Alberts).
Further, Lewis teaches how one of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize the viscosity to enable higher printing speeds and reduce the tendency of the extruded filament to curl against the nozzle during deposition ([0072] The solvent may be effective in lowering the viscosity of the ink formulation prior to deposition, thereby enabling higher printing speeds and reducing the propensity of the extruded filament to “curl up” against the nozzle during deposition).
Therefore, it is within the scope of the skilled person to vary the composition components or processing conditions of Alberts to achieve a composition that is capable of being 3D printed with a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Lewis and Alberts fail to teach all the limitations of claim 11 as recited in the amendment filed 02/11/2026. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees, and a rejection of claim 11 above under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis and further in view of Alberts addresses how the references teach all the limitations of claim 11.
Conclusion
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