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 .
Claims 1-14 are pending and being examined.
Response to Amendment
The previous rejection of Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 11-12, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2011-094128 A to Echigo et al.(hereinafter Echigo’128), is/are withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s arguments.
The previous rejection of Claim(s) 1-7, 9-12, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2013/0183528 A1 to Echigo et al.(hereinafter Echigo’528), is/are withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s arguments.
The remaining previous rejections below are modified in light of the Applicant’s arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 13-14, is/are rejected 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).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 13-14, Monsheimer’692 teaches a polymer powder for processing a layer-by-layer process produced by selectively melting by electromagnetic energy (para 15, 44-47), wherein the polymer powder is a copolyamide having an average particle size of 45 to 125 µm (para 34). Specifically, the powder is composed of 15 parts of laurolactam, and 85 parts of an equimolar mixture of isophoronediamine (IPD) and dodecanedioic acid (12), (i.e. 49.3 parts or isophoronediamine and 35.7 parts or dodecanedioic acid), wherein the powder has a Dv10 = 12µm, Dv50 = 56µm, and Dv90 = 105µm, (Example 6, para 57), which correlates to a distribution of 93/56=1.66, which meets the claimed powder with the claimed average size and distribution. The above IPD.12 meets the claimed Ca.Cb, and the copolyamide also correlates to 85% IPD.12, with 0.076 mol of laurolactam, 0.29 mol of IPD and 0.16 mol of dodecanedioic acid, or 100 mol% of the diamine is IPD, and 55 mol% of copolyamide is IPD. Monsheimer’692 also teaches the powder may further include fillers and auxiliaries (para 36). The above diameter values are measured suing a Malvern Mastersizer S, version 2.18 (para 51), which is commercially known in the art to measure particle size as volume average particle sizes. Monsheimer’692 also teaches that the above Example 6 has a melting point of 120 deg C. (See Table 1, para 62).
In regard to the glass transition of at least 100 deg C, the one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation for the laurolactam/isophoronediamine/dodecanedioic acid copolyamide of Monsheimer’692 to have a Tg higher than 100 deg C because Monsheimer’692 teaches that the above copolyamide of Example 6, which is composed of 14 mol% of laurolactam, 55 mol% of isophoronediamine, and 31 mol% of dodecanedioic acid, has a melting point of 120 deg C, (See Table 1, para 62), and it is known in the art that Tg and Tm are directly related to each other. Furthermore, the copolyamide of Monsheimer’692 is composed of a higher molar amount of isophoronediamine and dodecanedioic acid and as evidenced by the teachings of Yamanaka, it would be reasonable for it to have a Tg higher than 100 deg C because Yamanaka teaches that a similar polyamide resin of 1:1 molar ratio of isophoronediamine/dodecanedioic acid has a Tg of 124 deg C (See comparative example 2 of Yamanaka), such copolyamide resins will have a glass transition temperature of 100 deg C or higher because of the presence of the isophoronediamine and dodecanedioic acid (Yamanaka, para 25 and para 75 and Examples), and this is further evident by the data shown in table 1 where copolyamides with higher molar amounts of isophoronediamine and dodecanedioic acid all have Tg’s above 100 deg (Yamanaka, See Table 1, para 89).
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2007/0232753 A1 to Monsheimer et al. (hereinafter Monsheimer’753)
Regarding claims 1-7, 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 also teaches the grain size distribution will have a relatively broad distribution, wherein D90:D10 ranges from 3:1 to 15:1 (para 61). Assuming a relatively broad distribution range, D50 will be 2 when D90=3 and D10=1, and D50 will be about 8 when D90=15 and D10=1, which correlates to a distribution range of 2/2 to 14/8, or 1 to 1.75, which meets the claimed distribution of 2 or less.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in part.
On page 3, the Applicant argues that Monsheimer’692 does not teach that the average sizes are in “volume” sizes. This is not persuasive because Monsheimer’692 specifically teaches that the measurements are obtained using a Malvern Mastersizer S, (para 51), which is commercially known in the art to measure particle sizes in volume average diameter as evidenced in para 37 of US 2004/0009340 A1 to Zhu et al. and also as evidenced on page 5 of Malvern Panalytical, “Mastersizer 3000,” Brochure, pp. 1-11. (2019).
On page 3-4, the Applicant argues that there is no reasonable conclusion that the copolyamide of Monsheimer’692 can have a Tg higher than 100 deg C. This is not persuasive because, one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation for the laurolactam/isophoronediamine/dodecanedioic acid copolyamide of Monsheimer’692 to have a Tg higher than 100 deg C because Monsheimer’692 teaches that the above copolyamide of Example 6, which is composed of 14 mol% of laurolactam, 55 mol% of isophoronediamine, and 31 mol% of dodecanedioic acid, has a melting point of 120 deg C, (See Table 1, para 62), and it is known in the art that Tg and Tm are directly related to each other. Furthermore, the copolyamide of Monsheimer’692 is composed of a higher molar amount of isophoronediamine and dodecanedioic acid and as evidenced by the teachings of Yamanaka, it would be reasonable for it to have a Tg higher than 100 deg C because Yamanaka teaches that a similar polyamide resin of 1:1 molar ratio of isophoronediamine/dodecanedioic acid has a Tg of 124 deg C (See comparative example 2 of Yamanaka), such copolyamide resins will have a glass transition temperature of 100 deg C or higher because of the presence of the isophoronediamine and dodecanedioic acid (Yamanaka, para 25 and para 75 and Examples), and this is further evident by the data shown in table 1 where copolyamides with higher molar amounts of isophoronediamine and dodecanedioic acid all have Tg’s above 100 deg (Yamanaka, See Table 1, para 89).
On page 4-5, the Applicant argues that there’s no indication the D10:D90 of Monsheimer’753 is measured in “volume.” This is not persuasive because it is commonly known by one ordinarily skilled in the art that particle/grain size distributions are measured in volume as evidenced by ACTTR, “The Meaning of D1, D50, D90, in Particle Size Report?,” https://www.acttr.com/en/en-faq/en-faq-particle-size-analyzer/407-en-faq-meaning-d10-d50-d90-size.html (published 21 July 2020), (hereinafter ACTTR), which teaches that D10 and D90 is synonymous with DV(0.9) and DV(0.1), wherein V means total volume. (See ACTTR).
On page 5-6, the Applicant argues that one skilled in the art would not assume the D50 values of Monsheimer’753. This is not persuasive because Monsheimer’753 teaches the grain size distribution of the resultant powder is relatively broad. (page 61). It is know by one ordinarily skilled in the art that a broad size distribution means a larger variability of particle sizes resulting in improved packing efficiency, See Diamond Vogel Particle Size Distribution Tech Bulletin, page 1, 06/2020, (hereinafter Diamond), and a broad distribution shows a wide distribution wherein the D50 is relatively in the middle between D10 and D90. (Diamond, page 1).
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 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