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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/03/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 2, 5-14 are pending and being examined.
Response to Amendment
The previous rejection of Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 13-14, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2007/0197692 A1 to Monsheimer et al. (hereinafter Monsheimer’692) as evidenced by US 2020/0062901 A1 to Yamanaka et al. (hereinafter Yamanaka) is/are withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s arguments.
The previous rejection of Claim(s) 1-7, 9-14, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2007/0232753 A1 to Monsheimer et al. (hereinafter Monsheimer’753) is/are withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s arguments.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2013-209617 A to Inohara et al. (hereinafter Inohara).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5-12, Inohara teaches a method of producing polymer fine particles with a narrow particle size distribution (See abstract), and specifically teaches producing polyamide fine particles from Trogamid CX7323 (See Examples, para 161-168), which is a semicrystalline PACM.12 polyamide (i.e. bis(3with Tg of 140 deg C, as cited by the Applicant in their examples, which meets the polyamide of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9. Inohara further teaches the particle sizes are measured by a volume basis (See Examples, para 161-168), and that the method produces an average particle size of 300 microns or less to 10 microns or more (para 143-144), which overlaps and meets the claimed range. (See MPEP 2144.05, “where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”). Inohara further teaches the method forms particles with a narrow particle distribution wherein D50/D10 is 1.6 or less and D90/D10 is also 1.6 or less (para 147-148).
Using the above 1.6 or less range, the above correlates to D10 = (D50)/1.6, D90 = 1.6(D50), which when placed into the claimed formula of ((Dv90-Dv10)/Dv50), this correlates to ((1.6(D50) – (D50)/1.6)/D50) = 0.975 or less, which meets the claimed volume average distribution.
Inohara further teaches that the method entails stirring the polymer in a poor solvent emulsion and that the stirring speed and contact time with the poor solvent controls the polymer particle average size and distribution, (para 122-134), and that the method is suitable for obtaining high quality high heat-resistant polymer particles with a narrow particle size distribution. (para 11 and 148) such as obtaining polymer particles with a glass transition temperature of 100 deg or higher (para 148) with an average volume size of 300 microns or less or 10 microns or more. (para 143). Inohara further teaches the fine particles are precipitated from the emulsion (para 122), filtered and dried (para 135), which meets claims 11-12. Inohara further teaches an additive such as an antioxidant may be added, (para 108-111), which meets claim 10, and the above polyamide may further be obtained from a condensation of a lactam, an aminocarboxylic acid, a dibasic acid, and/or a diamine, or mixtures thereof, (para 27-28), and examples of polyamide copolymers include a copolymer of 3,3’-dimethyl-4,4’-diaminodicyclohexyl methane and dodecadioic acid (Grilamid TR90) and/or a copolymer of 3,3'-dimethyl-4,4'-diaminodicyclohexylmethane, isophthalic acid, and 12-aminododecanoic acid (Grilamid TR70LX) which meets claims 5 and 8.
The claimed volume average size range and distribution would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention because Inohara further teaches a method of producing polymer fine particles wherein the method entails stirring the polymer in a poor solvent emulsion, in which the stirring speed and contact time with the poor solvent controls the polymer particle average size and distribution, (para 122-134), and produces high quality high heat-resistant polymer particles with a narrow particle size distribution, (para 11 and 148), wherein the obtained polymer particles may have an average volume size of 300 microns or less or 10 microns or more, (para 143), with a narrow particle distribution where D50/D10 is 1.6 or less and D90/D10 is also 1.6 or less (para 147-148).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-7, 9-14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0232753 A1 to Monsheimer et al. (hereinafter Monsheimer’753) and in further view of JP 2013-209617 A to Inohara et al. (hereinafter Inohara).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 6-7, 9-14, Monsheimer’753 teaches a production of a powder suitable for use in a process for the layer-by-layer moldless production of three-dimensional shaped articles, in which regions of the respective powder layer are selectively melted via input of electromagnetic energy, the production process comprising the mixing of a polymer or copolymer with at least one water-soluble polymeric polyol, the dissolution of the mixture in water to form a dispersion, the isolation of the polymer particles or copolymer particles from the dispersion, and the washing and drying of the isolated polymer particles or isolated copolymer particles. (para 22 and 78). Specifically, the polymer used is Trogamid CX7323, (para74), which is a semicrystalline PACM.12 polyamide with Tg of 140 deg C, as cited by the Applicant in their examples. Monsheimer’753 teaches the Trogamid CX7323 is processed by being mixed and kneaded in an extruder with PEG (i.e. solvent and homogenous mixture) at 270 deg C, then cooled and dispersed in water to form a dispersion (i.e. precipitation) and filtered, washed and dried to have a grain size of 30 or 60 µm (See Table 4, para 79), which meets the claimed polyamide, Tg, and average particle size.
Monsheimer’753 does not explicitly teach the narrow particle size distribution of ((Dv90-Dv10)/Dv50) of 2 or less.
However, Inohara teaches a method of producing polymer fine particles with a narrow particle size distribution (See abstract), and specifically teaches producing polyamide fine particles from Trogamid CX7323 (See Examples, para 161-168), which is a semicrystalline PACM.12 polyamide (i.e. bis(3with Tg of 140 deg C, as cited by the Applicant in their examples. Inohara further teaches the particle sizes are measured by a volume basis (See Examples, para 161-168), and that the method produces an average particle size of 300 microns or less to 10 microns or more (para 143-144), which overlaps and meets the claimed range. (See MPEP 2144.05, “where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”). Inohara further teaches the method forms particles with a narrow particle distribution wherein D50/D10 is 1.6 or less and D90/D10 is also 1.6 or less (para 147-148). Using the above 1.6 or less range, the above correlates to D10 = (D50)/1.6, D90 = 1.6(D50), which when placed into the claimed formula of ((Dv90-Dv10)/Dv50), this correlates to ((1.6(D50) – (D50)/1.6)/D50) = 0.975 or less, which meets the claimed volume average distribution. Inohara further teaches that the method entails stirring the polymer in a poor solvent emulsion and that the stirring speed and contact time with the poor solvent controls the polymer particle average size and distribution, (para 122-134), and that the method is suitable for obtaining high quality high heat-resistant polymer particles with a narrow particle size distribution. (para 11 and 148) such as obtaining polymer particles with a glass transition temperature of 100 deg or higher (para 148) with an average volume size of 300 microns or less or 10 microns or more. (para 143). Inohara further teaches the fine particles are precipitated from the emulsion (para 122), filtered and dried (para 135). The above is used in the field of polymer fine particles for rapid manufacturing such as with a laser processing technique where a more uniform particle distribution is required. (para 2-3), which is in the same field of use of polyamide powders of the Applicant’s invention.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to use stirring speed in the method of producing polymer fine particles of Inohara for the polyamide particles of Monsheimer’753 because Inohara teaches the stirring speed and contact time with the poor solvent controls the polymer particle average size and distribution, (para 122-134), and produces high quality high heat-resistant polymer particles with a narrow particle size distribution, (para 11 and 148).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 5-14, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP 2013-209616 A to Munekumi et al. (hereinafter Munekumi), which teaches the same polyamide particles as Inohara as cited above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HA S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7395. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, Flex schedule 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/HA S NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights