DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/2/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-18 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “the composition has an extrapolated starting temperature of melting…”, which is not supported by the specification.
Claims 1-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 and claim 6 recites an extrapolated starting temperature of melting (Teim). It is noted that this feature heavily depends on sample preparation conditions such as thermal history, crystallization conditions, and sample measurement conditions such as DSC heating rate. In other words, a PEKK composition can have the claimed Teim by controlling the thermal history or crystallization conditions. Therefore, without citing the sample preparation conditions the limitation is meaningless from a scientific point of view.
Claim 5 recites a melting temperature. It is noted that this feature heavily depends on sample preparation conditions such as thermal history, crystallization conditions, and sample measurement conditions such as DSC heating rate. In other words, a PEKK can have the claimed Tm by controlling the thermal history or crystallization conditions. Therefore, without citing the sample preparation conditions the limitation is meaningless from a scientific point of view.
Claim 5 recites a glass transition temperature. It is noted that this feature heavily depends on sample preparation conditions such as thermal history, and sample measurement conditions such as measurement method, heating rate. In other words, a PEKK can have the claimed Tg by controlling the thermal history, and DSC heating rate. Therefore, without citing the sample preparation conditions and measurement conditions the limitation is meaningless from a scientific point of view.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-8, 13, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodgers et al (US 2015/0252190).
Claims 1-6, 8: Rodgers teaches a composition for a powder-based additive manufacturing system, comprising a powder of semi-crystalline PEKK and polyetherimide [0133-0146]. PEKK can be Kepstan 6003 which has a T/I ratio of 60/40, and the claimed melting temperature, the glass transition temperature and the extrapolated starting temperature of melting.
Rodegers does not teach the MVR of the composition.
However, the melt volume rate of the composition for a powder-based additive manufacturing process is a result effective variable. When the MVR is too low (i.e. too thick), particles don’t fuse well resulting in porous or brittle parts; when the MVR is too high, material may spread excessively resulting in poor dimensional accuracy and surface defects or warping. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the melt volume rate through routine experimentation to balance between fusion and flow characteristic. Case law holds that "discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art." In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
The composition would have the claimed Teim by adjusting the thermal history or crystallization conditions.
Claim 7: Rodegers is silent with respect to the process window of the composition. However, the teachings from Rodegers have rendered obvious the instantly claimed ingredients thereof. Therefore, it is reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed physical properties to naturally arise.
Claim 13: the claim does not clarify what a primary composition is. Any ingredient would read on it.
Claims 16-17: Rodgers teaches the composition may comprise 1-80wt% of a filler such as magnesium carbonate, alumina, silica [0136]. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 9-12, 14-15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodgers et al (US 2015/0252190) in view of Pfister et al (US 2020/0140706, equivalent with WO 2018197577).
Claims 9-12: Rodgers teaches the limitation of claim 1, as discussed above.
Rodgers does not teach the particle size distribution like claimed.
However, Pfister discloses a powder-based additive manufacturing system and teaches the polymer powders have particle size distribution of d50 20-100um, d90 less than 150um, (d90 -d10)/d50 of less than 3, a sphericity greater than 0.8 [0113-0115, examples, claim 5]. Particle size and particle size distribution affects the particle packing and process efficiency. A powdery material with such a particle size distribution is suited to be applied layer by layer and help producing an object with lower porosity, better dimensional stability and better shape retention [0011]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize polymer powder with particle size distribution like claimed to produce an three dimensional object with improved properties.
Claim 14-15, 18: Rodgers is silent with respect to the properties of the composition. However, the combination of teachings from Rodgers and Pfister have rendered obvious the instantly claimed ingredients and amounts thereof. Therefore, it is reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed physical properties to naturally arise.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
In response to applicant's argument regarding unexpected results, it is noted that unexpected results should be demonstrated by experimental data together with a detailed interpretation of the experimental data, be compared to the closest prior art, be really unexpected and be commensurate in scope with the scope of the claims. If Teim is critical, sample preparation conditions, i.e. a specific annealing treatment, should be included in the claims. It is further noted that annealing increasing Teim, increasing Tm broadening process window are well known in the art. Because a wider sintering window allows stable processing; the sintering window is the difference between melting temperature and crystallization temperature; and for semicrystalline polymers, the melting temperature is higher than the crystallization temperature.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENWEN CAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3590. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on (571)272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WENWEN CAI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights