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 .
The response filed January 12, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Previous Rejections
The previous 35 USC 112 rejection has been overcome. The 35 USC 103 rejections have been maintained.
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.
Claims 1-11, 13-15, 24-26 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2018/0361660).
Claim 1: Chen discloses an additive manufacturing method of making a three-dimensional object including polyurea (¶ 40, 156). The method includes dispensing a one part dual cure resin into a stereolithography apparatus (¶¶ 10, 158), the resin including a photoinitiator (¶ 40), and a reactive blocked polyisocyanate (¶¶ 40, 102), the reactive blocked polyisocyanate including a reaction product of a polyisocyanate and an amine (¶ 16); additively manufacturing from the resin an intermediate object including a light polymerization product of the reactive blocked polyisocyanate (¶ 156-159); reacting the product in the intermediate with water to generate polyamine in situ that sequentially reacts with a remainder of the product to form urea linkages and thereby produce the object including polyurea (¶ 25), wherein reacting is performed concurrently with heating (¶¶ 11). All of the materials and properties in the claimed method are described in embodiments throughout the specification. As taught by Chen, “Any of the above-described structures, materials and properties can be combined to form 3D objects” and “[t]he above methods, structures, materials, compositions and properties may be used to 3D print a virtually unlimited number of products.” (¶ 365). It would have been obvious at the time the application was filed to have combined the materials, properties and method steps in the embodiments of Chen to form a virtually unlimited number of three-dimensional objects, as explicitly taught by Chen.
Claim 2: Chen discloses the dispensing step (a) is carried out with a resin that further comprises water in amount sufficient to convert the polymerization product produced in step (b) to the polyurea produced in step (d).
Claim 3: Chen discloses polyepoxide being present in the resin and reacting the polyepoxide with polyamine generated in situ to form an epoxy-amine network in the object along with the polyurea (¶¶ 325-326).
Claim 4: Chen discloses the polyepoxide includes a bisphenol A epoxy resin (¶ 294).
Claim 5: Chen discloses the polisocyanate includes a polyurethane prepolymer, and the objecting includes a copolymer of polyurethane and polyurea (Examples 15-16).
Claims 6-7 and 25: Chen discloses the blocking agent includes TBAEMA (¶¶ 237-238).
Claims 8 and 26: Chen discloses reacting carried out by baking in an oven (¶¶ 519-530), with humidity from the presence of water in Chen.
Claim 9: Chen discloses heating at an elevated pressure (¶ 153).
Claim 11: Chen discloses cleaning by washing (¶ 366).
Claim 13: Chen discloses the resin including isobornyl methacrylate (¶ 517).
Claims 14 and 31: Chen discloses the additive manufacturing step being carried out by CLIP (¶ 10).
Claim 15: Chen discloses the dispensing step including mixing first and second dual cure resins each including a photoinitiator and a reactive blocked polyisocyanate (¶ 116); the reactive blocked polyisocyanate of each resin including t a reaction product of a polyisocyanate and an amine or hydroxyl (meth)acrylate or (meth)acrylamide monomer blocking agent (¶ 16); the first and second resins having different tensile properties (¶ 364); to produce a combined resin having different tensile properties (¶ 365).
Claims 10 and 29-30: With respect to the percentage of urea linkages required by the claims, it is the position of the examiner that because the reference teaches the use of the same materials for the same purpose as required by the instant claims, the percentage of urea linkages would be expected to be the same. "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on 'inherency' under 35 U.S.C. 102, on 'prima facie obviousness' under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same...[footnote omitted]." The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (quoting In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)).
Claim 24: Chen discloses the resin consists essentially of the photoinitiator and the reactive blocked polyisocyanate (claim 34).
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2018/0361660), as applied to claim 9 above, in view of Song (US 2020/0172669).
Chen is silent as to baking being carried out in an autoclave. However, Song discloses an additive manufacturing method of making a three-dimensional objecting including polyurea (¶¶ 11-12), including baking being carried out in an autoclave (¶ 88). As taught by Song, baking in an autoclave allows for control of the desired degree of crosslinking (¶ 88). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have baked the intermediate of Chen in an autoclave in order to control for the desired degree of crosslinking, as taught by Song, with steam from the presence of water in Chen.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “claim 1, properly interpreted by the phrase ‘consisting essentially of,’ does not include the polyamines and chain extenders of Chen, which are present in the sections of Chen that the Office Action cites to.” This argument has been considered but is not persuasive for two reasons. First, the Office action cites to paragraphs 16, 40 and 102 for the resin. Some of these paragraphs include optional components, such as a polyamine or chain extenders. An optional component is not a required component; nothing in the cited paragraphs requires a polyamine or a chain extender. Second, the language of the claims do not preclude additional resins that include components such as polyamine and chain extenders. Note the “comprising” language of the preamble, which leaves the method open for additional steps, such as adding additional resins.
With regard to dependent claim 3, Applicant argues that Chen does not discloses Chen polyepoxide being present in the resin and reacting the polyepoxide with polyamine generated in situ to form an epoxy-amine network in the object along with the polyurea. This argument has been considered but is not persuasive. Chen discloses the reaction of a diepoxide (polyepoxide) with diamine (polyamine) generated in situ to form an epoxy-amine network (thermoset epoxy network) in the object along with the polyurea in paragraphs 325-326 of Chen.
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 LARRY THROWER whose telephone number is (571)270-5517. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm MT M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1487. 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.
/LARRY W THROWER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754