DETAILED ACTION
This office action follows a reply filed on March 20, 2026. Claims 1, 2, 9 and 13 have been amended. Claims 1-3, 7-10, 12-15, 17, 20-22 and 24 are currently pending and under examination.
The texts of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code are not included in this section and can be found in a prior Office action.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-10, 13-15, 17, 20-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monsheimer I (US 2006/0189784), optionally in view of Monsheimer II (US 2008/0300353), and further in view of US 10,118,222, as evidenced by Palmer Holland (Licomont NaV 101, Palmer Holland, 2025, 5 pages).
Monsheimer I teaches polymer powder containing at least one block polyetheramide containing an oligomide dicarboxylic acid and a polyetheramine, where the polymer is suitable for use in a layer-by-layer process in which regions are selectively melted via introduction of electromagnetic energy (Abstract). Monsheimer teaches that the polyetheramines form the soft block and the oligoamide dicarboxylic acids form the hard block in the copolymer (p. 4, [0050] and [0052]). Monsheimer I teaches the average grain diameter of the polyetheramide as 40-120 micron (p. 3, [0037]).
As to the “polyol soft segment blocks”, polyetheramines are known in the art as aminated polyols. Applicants disclose in the instant specification that “Longer polyol chains may be present as the soft segments, including those that may be built from polyethers, polycarbonates, or the like.” (p. 11, [0026]). Therefore, the polyetheramine meets the required polyol soft segments.
Monsheimer I teaches that the block polyetherimide powder can comprise auxiliaries and/or fillers and/or pigments, where the auxiliaries include powder-flow aids (p. 5, [0060]). Monsheimer I teaches that in order to improve melt flow during production of the moldings, a flow agent may be added to the block polyetherimide powder, examples being metal soaps, preferably the alkali metal salts of the underlying alkanemonocarboxylic acids, where mixtures of fine-particle metal soap particles and polymer particles may be present (p. 5, [0065]). Monsheimer teaches that the metals soaps are present in an amount of 0.5-15 wt%, teaching specific metal soaps to include Licomont NaV 101, known in the art as sodium montonate (p. 5, [0066]). Licomont NaV 101 has a median particle size at a maximum of 37.1 micron, as evidenced by Palmer Holland (p. 5). Other metal soaps are very well-known in the art include those of stearic acid and lauric acid, where stearic acid is a C18 alkanemonocarboxylic acid.
Choosing a sodium stearate or sodium laurate with a median particle size of 37.1 micron is prima facie obvious, as Monsheimer I does not particularly limit the metal soaps which can be used.
The amount of metal soap overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5-6 wt% of claim 1, 1.5-4.5 wt% of claim 3, 0.5-3 wt% in claim 24 and it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Alternatively, Monsheimer I does not specifically teach the particle size of the metal soaps, as claimed.
Monsheimer II teaches laser sinter powder with metal soaps, teaching the metal soaps to include the calcium or sodium salts of saturated C10-C44 fatty acids (p. 2, [0024]). Monsheimer II teaches that it is advantageous if the metal soaps encapsulate the sinter powder particles, teaching that these particles have very good flowability (p. 2, [0025]). Monsheimer II teaches that the metal soap particles preferably have a median particle size which is smaller or approximately equal to that of the particles of the polyamide sinter material, teaching that the median particle size, d50, should not exceed the median particle size of the sinter material by more than 20% (p. 3, [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a metal soap having a particle size which is about the same or no more than 20% greater than that of the sinter polymer powder, which is 40-120 micron, as Monsheimer II teaches that this provides a sinter powder with very good flowability.
Monsheimer I teaches that the powder compositions are suitable for use in a number of different layer-by-layer processes, including that taught by DE 10 2004 012 682 (p. 6, [0074]).
DE 10 2004 012 682 is the same as US 10,118,222.
US ‘222 teaches a process for bonding of material for the production of three-dimensional objects by selective heating via a laser, teaching that the selectivity of the melting process is achieved via the application of an absorber to certain subregions of a layer composed of a pulverulent substrate, and then heating of the absorber of laser irradiation (Abstract). US ‘222 teaches that the absorber absorbs heat via electromagnetic radiation from a laser (col. 10, ll. 35-37). US ’222 teaches that the absorber can be carbon black or CHP, suspended in a liquid, such as water and alcohol (col. 11, ll. 31-54 and col. 12, ll. 11-27), and exemplifies the absorber as a suspension of CHP (copper hydroxide phosphate) in water and isopropanol (Example 1).
Therefore the compositions of Monsheimer I are suitable for use with applicants’ fusing agent, or the absorber of US ‘222, as this is clearly suggested by the teachings of Monsheimer I.
Monsheimer I in view of Monsheimer II and US ‘222 is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1-3, 7, 9-10, 13-15, 17, 21-22 and 24
As to claim 20, Monsheimer I exemplifies a sinter powder d50 particle size of 64-74 micron.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monsheimer I (US 2006/0189784), optionally in view of Monsheimer II US 2008/0300353), and further in view of US 10,118,222, as applied above to claims 1-3, 7, 9-10, 13-15, 17, 20-22 and 24, and further in view of Khoshnevis (US 2004/0173945)
Monsheimer I in view of Monsheimer II and US ‘222 is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1-3, 7, 9-10, 13-15, 17, 20-22 and 24, as described above and applied herein as such, as Monsheimer I teaches a composition suitable for use in a layer-by-layer process in which regions of powder layer are selectively melted via introduction of electromagnetic energy, where the composition comprises a thermoplastic polyamide, polyester or polyurethane elastomer, and a wax, such as sodium montonate or sodium stearate.
Monsheimer I nor Monsheimer II teach the use of a detailing agent in the process, but Monsheimer does teach the inclusion of an inhibitor (p. 2, [0029]).
Koshnevis teaches a layer-by-layer selective bonding processes, teaching the inclusion of a sintering inhibitor, which can have a specific implementation of preventing the powder from achieving the temperature necessary for bonding (p. 4, [0046]), which meets applicants’ detailing agent.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used an inhibitor which prevents the powder from achieving the temperature necessary for bonding to provide selectivity when carrying out melting of the layer-by-layer process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that the polyetheramine of Monsheimer forms the soft block of the polymer, whereas the claimed invention requires “block copolymers with polyol soft segments”.
While the examiner agrees that Monsheimer I requires a polyetheramine rather than a polyol, a polyetheramine is prepared by aminating a polyol. The polyol structure is still incorporated into the elastomer block copolymer.
Applicants disclose in the instant specification that “Longer polyol chains may be present as the soft segments, including those that may be built from polyethers, polycarbonates, or the like.” (p. 11, [0026]). Therefore, the polyetheramine meets the required polyol soft segments.
Alternatively, Monsheimer I points to DE 3006961, which is the same as US 4,356,300, for preparing the polyetheramides, where US ‘300 discloses the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
485
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Upon reaction of the diamine and the dicarboxylic acid, the “polyol segment” or O-[-(CH2)4-O- segment would be maintained in the final structure of the polyether polyamide.
Applicants argue unexpected, enhanced mechanical properties when using 0.5-6 wt% of the C12-C24 straight chain alkyl carboxylate, whereas Monsheimer I teaches the inclusion of 0.01-30 wt%, preferably 0.5-15 wt%.
When looking to show unexpected results, applicants should consider the following:
When looking to showings of results in order to overcome a rejection, the following must be considered:
Results must be Unexpected:
Unexpected properties must be more significant than expected properties to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Nolan 193 USPQ 641 CCPA 1977.
Obviousness does not require absolute predictability. In re Miegel USPQ 716.
Since unexpected results are by definition unpredictable, evidence presented in comparative showings must be clear and convincing. In re Lohr 137 USPQ 548.
In determining patentability, the weight of the actual evidence of unobviousness presented must be balanced against the weight of obviousness of record. In re Chupp, 2 USPQ 2d 1437; In re March 175 USPQ; In re Battle, 24 USPQ 2d 1040.
Claims Must be Commensurate with Showings:
Evidence of superiority must pertain to the full extent of the subject matter being claimed. In re Ackerman, 170 USPQ 340; In re Chupp, 2 USPQ 2d 1437; In re Murch 175 USPQ 89: Ex Parte A, 17 USPQ 2d 1719; accordingly, it has been held that to overcome a reasonable case of prima facie obviousness a given claim must be commensurate in scope with any showing of unexpected results. In re Greenfield, 197 USPQ 227. Further, a limited showing of criticality is insufficient to support a broadly claimed range. In re Lemin, 161 USPQ 288.
Result Must Compare to Closest Prior Art:
Where a definite comparative standard may be used, the comparison must relate to the prior art embodiment relied upon and not other prior art - Blanchard v. Ooms, 68 USPQ 314 - and must be with a disclosure identical (not similar) with that of said embodiment: In re Tatincloux, 108 USPQ 125.
Applicants compared 0 wt%, 3 wt% and 10 wt% of sodium stearate with a thermoplastic elastomeric polyamide.
Applicants have not shown the criticality of the claimed range of 0.5-6 wt%, as applicants have only compared one point within the range, and two points outside of the range.
Additionally, the showing is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention, as the invention allows for any C12-C24 straight chain alkyl carboxylate in combination with any thermoplastic elastomeric polyamide, whereas applicants have only shown the effects of one carboxylate, sodium stearate, and one elastomeric polyamide, of which the structure is unknown.
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 BRIEANN R JOHNSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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.
/Brieann R Johnston/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights