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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 10/29/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all other groups have been cancelled. This is not found persuasive because the presented arguments fail to specifically outline how the positions taken within the restriction requirement of 8/29/2025 are in error.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emamjomeh (US 2019/0002714 A1) in view of Teti (U.S. Pat. No. 3,696,058).
Regarding Claims 1-4 and 8, Emamjomeh describes 3D printed objects obtained from a build comprising polymeric particles bonded together with an ink comprising particulate fusing agents (Abstract; ¶ 6; Examples). The builds comprise 92-99.5 wt% of polymeric particles (¶ 31), suggesting resulting printed objects exhibiting polymeric contents consistent with the range claimed. The polymers can be various polyamides, such as polyamide 6 (¶ 13).
Emamjomeh differs from the subject matter claimed in that a particular method of recovering/recycling polyamide from the printed objects is not described. Teti teaches it was known in the art scrap thermoplastics such as polyamides can be recycled via dissolving polymer in a solvent such as hexafluoroisopropanol, filtering to remove undissolved material, and then separating polymer from solvent (Abstract; Col. 1). Teti informs the process provides polymers free of degradation products that can be re-used in other applications (Col. 2, Lines 3-12 and 48-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the protocols of Teti toward undesirable/scrap printed objects of Emamjomeh because doing so would facilitate the re-use of recovered polymer toward other applications as taught by Teti.
Emamjomeh teaches the fusing compounds can be pigments such as carbon black (Table 2) and Teti indicates the filtration step serves to remove undissolved pigments (Col. 6, Lines 24-26). Therefore, there would be an expectation that the particulate fusing compounds of Emamjomeh would be separated/removed during the filtration step of Teti. Teti teaches embodiments where polyamide-dissolving solvent is evaporated from polymer (Col. 2, Lines 55-60).
Regarding Claim 6, Emamjomeh teaches the presence of reinforcing particles such as solid mica (Abstract; ¶ 12), construed as particulate fillers. Since mica is insoluble in organic solvents such as hexafluoroisopropanol, the dissolution of polyamide would naturally separate such fillers from polymer. Teti indicates the filtration step serves to remove undissolved pigments and solid contaminates (Col. 6, Lines 24-26). Therefore, there would be an expectation that the reinforcing particles/fillers of Emamjomeh would be separated/removed during the filtration step of Teti.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emamjomeh (US 2019/0002714 A1) in view of Teti (U.S. Pat. No. 3,696,058) and Miller-Chou (Prog. Polym. Sci. 2003, 28, 1223-1270).
The discussion regarding Emamjomeh and Teti within ¶ 7-10 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 9, Teti teaches cutting scrap polymer into pieces prior to dissolution, on the order of one half inch square (Col. 8, Lines 66-68). While not describing cutting into the particular sizes claimed, Miller-Chou teaches it was known in the art polymer dissolution is impacted by the surface area of substrate (Page 1230, Left Column). Thus, the surface area of the resulting particles, directly related to the size/shape of the particles, is a known result effective variable subject to routine optimization by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II). Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discover workable or optimal particle shapes/sizes within the scope of the present claims so as to produce desired dissolution timeframes.
Regarding Claim 10, Teti teaches dissolution can be at ambient temperature or at slightly elevated temperatures while taking care to avoid thermal degradation of polymer with prolonged heating (Col. 6, Lines 2-10; Col. 5, Lines 31-35). Miller-Chou teaches it was known in the art polymer dissolution is impacted by temperature via chain disentanglement (Sections 2 and 2.1). Although Teti does not describe the claimed temperature/time-frames, such parameters were known result effective variables subject to routine optimization by one of ordinary skill in the art as indicated by the above references. See MPEP 2144.05(II). Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discover workable or optimal heating temperatures and times within the scope of the present claims so as to produce desired dissolution timeframes while avoiding excessive thermal degradation.
Claim(s) 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emamjomeh (US 2019/0002714 A1) in view of Teti (U.S. Pat. No. 3,696,058) and Ravetkar (US 2015/0031778 A1).
The discussion regarding Emamjomeh and Teti within ¶ 7-10 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claims 7 and 11, Teti teaches embodiments where polyamide polymer is separated via precipitation with water and filtering (Col. 6, Lines 53-62). Emamjomeh/Teti differs from the subject matter claimed in that heating/evaporating/collecting solvent to separate polyamide is not described.
Ravetkar is also directed toward methods of recovering polyamides from waste materials via dissolution, separating undissolved material, and recovering polyamide (Abstract). Ravetkar notes precipitating with water / antisolvent can result in the percentage of pure polyamide being low and wasted solvent (¶ 3-4). Ravetkar teaches precipitation can alternatively occur via evaporation, whereby vapors of the evaporated solvent can be condensed and collected for re-use (¶ 21-22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the evaporation protocol of Ravetkar when isolating the polymers of Emamjomeh/Teti because doing so would facilitate isolation/purification of recovered polyamide and recovery/re-use of solvent as taught by Ravetkar.
Ravetkar teaches evaporation/recovery may occur at absolute pressures below atmospheric pressure (i.e. under vacuum) (¶ 21), suggesting embodiments where evaporating occurs in conjunction with a vacuum trap to condense solvent. With respect to temperature / timeframe conditions, although Ravetkar does not provide such for solvents such as those taught by Teti, Ravetkar nevertheless indicates specified temperatures/pressures should be used such that the evaporation rate is controlled such that, for example, 20-60% is evaporated per hour (¶ 21). Accordingly, Ravetkar indicates temperatures/pressures/timeframes are all known result effective variables subject to routine optimization by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II). Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discover workable/optimal temperatures/pressures/timeframes for a given solvent within the scope of the present claims so as to produce desired end results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN E RIETH whose telephone number is (571)272-6274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM-4PM Mountain Standard Time.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at (571)272-1166. 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.
/STEPHEN E RIETH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759