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, 3-7, 11-12, and 14-17 are pending with claims 1, 3-7, and 16 under examination.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 17 is directed to an invention that lacks unity with the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claim 17 lacks unity of invention with the other claims because it specifies a different polymeric build material: nylon-12, which is not listed as any of the options in claim 1, thus meaning claim 17 has a different technical feature than claim 1 which can include a variety of polymeric materials as it can include blends of different polymers which would behave differently than a non-blended polymer.
Additionally, the provided range for dihydrazide is much narrower in claim 1 than it is in withdrawn claim 17 thus further differentiating the technical feature. Furthermore, all shared features of claims 1 and 17 are met in the prior art below in claim 1, and as such, there would be no unity of invention.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 17 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emamjomeh et al. (US 2019/0047216), hereinafter Emamjomeh, in view of Furar et al. (US 2014/0272419), hereinafter Furar.
Regarding claims 1, 5, and 16, Emamjomeh discloses a three-dimensional printing kit comprising:
(a) a polymeric (par. 0075 – includes at least polyethylene/polyamide (meeting claim 16)/polypropylenes) build material including from about 80-100% (par. 0061) and 10-150 microns (par. 0061 teaches this range verbatim for the diameter of the particles); (b) a fusing agent formulation including an aqueous liquid vehicle (par. 0068) and a radiation absorber (par. 0023-0030) which can be carbon black, metal, IR absorbing dye/pigment, or a conjugated polymer.
Emamjomeh does not explicitly disclose the inclusion of 0.01-2% by weight of (dry-blended) dihydrazide as in claims 1/5.
However, Furar discloses a coating material that is placed onto a substrate also comprising: (a) a polymeric build material (polymeric particles) (par. 0040, 0094) and a polyhydrazide (dihydrazide – par. 0089) and (b) a fusing agent formulation including an aqueous liquid vehicle and a radiation absorber (par. 0049 – photosensitive and/or photochromic compositions activated by exposure to radiation). Furar includes the dihydrazide in a percentage of 0.1-3% by weight, overlapping with the claimed ranges (par. 0089).
*Even if Applicant’s calculations (see Remarks, p. 10) are used here where this is 0.5-6% by weight of polyhydrazide, these values would still be close with the claimed range as outlined below. However, Applicant’s calculations, repeated for the 50% end point (Furar, par. 0053), would provide for a lower limit of 0.2%, thus still overlapping with the 0.01-0.3% range here in claim 1.
Furar further explains (par. 0089) that “the hydrazide group is very polar” and “may be in the dispersed phase” (mixture with the polymer instead of with the water). Furar also teaches that the polyhydrazides are reactive with certain functional groups of the polymeric particles, which allows it to “crosslink to form the highly crosslinked cured film.” As such, in order to likewise improve the cross-linking of the polymer, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have included a polyhydrazide or dihydrazide as specified by Furar as a component with the polymeric material of Emamjomeh as is required in the claims.
Additionally, regarding the overlapping ranges above, it has been held that where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the above to have specified the range of dihydrazide is as claimed in view of the overlapping ranges above.
Additionally, it has been held that where the prior art discloses a range that is merely close with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, as there would be similar properties expected. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the concentration of dihydrazide obvious in view of the teachings of Furar above, as is required in the claims.
Regarding claims 3-4, Emamjomeh/Furar discloses the subject matter of claims 1/8, and further discloses the adipic acid dihydrazide (Furar, par. 0089).
Regarding claim 6, Emamjomeh/Furar discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the fluid recycling agent/fusing agent includes water (Emamjomeh, par. 0035) as the balance with an organic co-solvent (par. 0037-0038) at 5-35% (specifically listed as 10-40% and also 5-20% as two alternate ranges, each of which overlap with the claimed range in Eamamjomeh, par. 0038) and a radiation absorber at 1-20% (Emamjomeh, par. 0030).
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art can deduce that the water is 60-94% from these teachings since 94% is where the water would maximize in value. It has been held that where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the above to have specified the ranges are as claimed in view of the overlapping ranges above.
Regarding claim 7, Emamjomeh/Furar discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses the detailing agent including water which would reduce the temperature of the polymeric building material (Emamjomeh, par. 0009).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the arguments regarding claim 1, the range here is 0.01%-0.3% in the claimed invention. Applicant’s arguments show a calculation (see footnotes 1-2, p. 10) that only accounts for the number of solids being at a 20% value. Furar also explains that it can be up to 50% by weight. Thus, repeating these calculations for a 50% dispersed phase results in a lower end point of 0.2% (by multiplying the 0.1 value by 2 or 100/50; instead of 5 or 100/20), thus still overlapping with the claimed range in claims 1 and 5 (end point of claim 5’s range, but this would still be supportive of obviousness as discussed in MPEP 2144).
It appears that this range should instead be 0.2%-6wt% when calculated using the 50% dispersed phase value, which would support the idea that this overlaps with the claimed range (0.01-0.3wt%) as currently claimed.
Regarding claim 17, this claim is withdrawn as not having unity of invention. However, it is noted that nylon-12 would seem to have at least a keto group (carbonyl, C=O) as the laurolactam unit produced from ring opening would have the carbonyl group.
The rejections are maintained as updated above.
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 ANDREW D GRAHAM whose telephone number is (469)295-9232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM-4:00PM (CST).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/ANDREW D GRAHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742