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, 3-14 are pending and are under examination on the merits.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claim 2 is newly canceled.
Claims 6-14 are newly added.
Claim Interpretation
The Claim Interpretation of claim 4 previously set forth is slightly amended due to applicant’s arguments. As previously stated, the claimed “evaporative pattern” must include the methyl methacrylate foamed product. According to the instant description paragraph 2, the word “evaporative” is thus a future intended use, because the foam disintegrates upon contact with molten metal. Once the metal is present the foam no longer exists; therefore the “evaporative” aspect of the pattern must be future. Therefore the instant term “an evaporative pattern” is a future intended use in the preamble of claim 5. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Any foam which is capable of being an evaporative pattern in the future will read on this aspect of the claim.
Specification
The amendment filed 9/22/25 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: deleting "cyclohexane" from paragraph 35 and as well as changing the chemical "sodium triphosphate" to "tricalcium phosphate" in Tables 1 and 2.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejection in the previous action of claims 1, 3 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2000086804 by Sakamoto et al is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment. Sakamoto’s examples no longer cover the instantly claimed constitutional units. However, Sakamoto’s description still renders obvious the claims, see 103 rejections set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2000086804 by Sakamoto et al.
Sakamoto describes foamable methyl methacrylate resin particles.
Regarding claim 1, Sakamoto describes an expandable particle comprising:
A base resin including a methyl methacrylate unit (paragraph 6), an acrylic ester unit which can be butyl acrylate (paragraph 7), and a crosslinking agent which can be 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate (paragraph 8). Sakamoto describes a foaming (blowing) agent which can be for example butane (paragraph 19) in an amount of 3-12 parts by weight (paragraph 19).
Sakamoto describes particles having a size of 400 microns or more (paragraph 14), and exemplifies 470 microns (Example 4).
Sakamoto exemplifies the amount of methyl methacrylate as 94.5 parts, acrylic ester as 5.5 parts (exemplified as methyl acrylate but can be butyl acrylate see paragraph 7) (paragraph 39). Sakamoto describes the amount of crosslinking agent as 0.02 to 1 wt% (paragraph 29)
Sakamoto does not require or describe the presence of any aromatic vinyl (e.g. styrene).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to arrive at values in the claimed ranges because Sakamoto describes values overlapping with the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 3, Sakamoto describes expanded particles (p.9 middle of page “expansion ratio was measured by heating steam”).
The rejection in the previous action of claims 1, 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130267617 by Park et al in view of JP 2000086804 by Sakamoto et al is repeated and amended below to reflect applicant’s amendment. New claim 8 is also rejected under the same premise.
Park a process of fabricating a cast foam product.
Regarding claim 1, Park describes polymethylmethacrylate particles (paragraph 19) but is silent as to the instant specific ratios.
Sakamoto is described above.
Sakamoto describes an expandable particle comprising:
A base resin including a methyl methacrylate unit (paragraph 6), an acrylic ester unit which can be butyl acrylate (paragraph 7), and a crosslinking agent which can be 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate (paragraph 8). Sakamoto describes a foaming (blowing) agent which can be for example butane (paragraph 19) in an amount of 3-12 parts by weight (paragraph 19).
Sakamoto describes particles having a size of 400 microns or more (paragraph 14), and exemplifies 470 microns (Example 4).
Sakamoto exemplifies the amount of methyl methacrylate as 94.5 parts, acrylic ester as 5.5 parts (exemplified as methyl acrylate but can be butyl acrylate see paragraph 7) (paragraph 39). Sakamoto describes the amount of crosslinking agent as 0.02 to 1 wt% (paragraph 29)
Sakamoto does not require or describe the presence of any aromatic vinyl (e.g. styrene).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to arrive at values in the claimed ranges because Sakamoto describes values overlapping with the claimed ranges.
Sakamoto states that compared to other polymethylmethacrylate particles his particles have high expansion rates due to their diameter (translation p.2 paragraph prior to the label “[0004]”, p.2 second paragraph after “[0004]”), with low gas release (p.2 paragraph after “[0004]”). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use Sakamoto’s methylmethacrylate particles where Park more broadly describes “polymethylmethacrylate particles” because of their high expansion ratios.
Regarding claim 3, Sakamoto describes expanded particles (p.9 middle of page “expansion ratio was measured by heating steam”).
Regarding claim 4, Park describes a molded product by molding the methyl methacrylate particles (paragraph 17, 19).
Regarding claim 5, Park’s molded product is capable of acting as an evaporative pattern, therefore it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 8, Park’s molded product is capable of acting as an evaporative pattern configured to be replace with a molten metal, therefore it meets the claim.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2000086804 by Sakamoto et al in view of US 20170291216 by Suzuki et al.
Sakamoto is described above.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Sakamoto describes the optional presence of cyclohexane as a blowing agent in 3-12 parts (paragraph 19) but is silent as to its presence as a solvent and in the instant amount, when the blowing agent chosen is not cyclohexane.
Suzuki also describes expandable methyl methacrylate particles.
Suzuki states that using a solvent, specifically cyclohexane, as an additive (paragraph 43). It aids in foaming when added in an amount of 1.5-3.0wt% (paragraph 43). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to add the cyclohexane as described by Suzuki to the methyl methacrylate particles of Sakamoto in order to aid in foaming.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2000086804 by Sakamoto et al in view of JP 2006241256 by Ueda et al.
Sakamoto is described above.
Regarding claim 9, Sakamoto exemplifies an expandable particle comprising methyl methacrylate 94.5 parts by weight, methyl acrylate (instant acrylic ester) 5.5 parts by weight, and HAD (instant crosslinking agent) 0.19 parts by weight (translation p.9 paragraph 2) and pentane (instant blowing agent, p.9 paragraph 3). The particle has an average size in Example 4 of 470 microns, 0.470mm (See original Table 1). This falls within the claimed range.
Notably Sakamoto also describes ranges for methyl methacrylate (translation p.3 paragraph 1), different acrylic ester units (p.3 paragraph 3) and particle size (p.4 paragraph 6, claim 4) each overlapping with the claimed ranges.
Sakamoto is silent as to the presence of a poorly water-soluble inorganic salt, although he does describe anionic stabilizers for the suspension polymerization (paragraph 11).
Ueda also describes expandable methyl methacrylate particles.
Ueda states that poorly water-soluble inorganic salts like calcium phosphate, magnesium pyrophosphate and others, with anionic surfactants are more effective because the dispersion stability is increased, and also they can be used to adjust particle diameter (translation p.4 paragraph 3). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use the inorganic salts with anionic surfactants described by Ueda to increase dispersion stability for suspension polymerization in Sakamoto, or to adjust particle diameter.
Regarding claim 10, Sakamoto describes an acrylic ester unit which can be butyl acrylate (paragraph 7).
Regarding claim 11, Sakamoto describes expanded particles (p.9 middle of page “expansion ratio was measured by heating steam”).
Claims 9-14 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130267617 by Park et al in view of JP 2000086804 by Sakamoto et al in further view of JP 2006241256 by Ueda et al.
Park is described above.
Regarding claim 9, Park describes polymethylmethacrylate particles (paragraph 19) but is silent as to the instant specific ratios.
Sakamoto is described above.
Sakamoto exemplifies an expandable particle comprising methyl methacrylate 94.5 parts by weight, methyl acrylate (instant acrylic ester) 5.5 parts by weight, and HAD (instant crosslinking agent) 0.19 parts by weight (translation p.9 paragraph 2) and pentane (instant blowing agent, p.9 paragraph 3). The particle has an average size in Example 4 of 470 microns, 0.470mm (See original Table 1). This falls within the claimed range.
Notably Sakamoto also describes ranges for methyl methacrylate (translation p.3 paragraph 1), different acrylic ester units (p.3 paragraph 3) and particle size (p.4 paragraph 6, claim 4) each overlapping with the claimed ranges.
Sakamoto is silent as to the presence of a poorly water-soluble inorganic salt, although he does describe anionic stabilizers for the suspension polymerization (paragraph 11).
Ueda also describes expandable methyl methacrylate particles.
Ueda states that poorly water-soluble inorganic salts like calcium phosphate, magnesium pyrophosphate and others, with anionic surfactants are more effective because the dispersion stability is increased, and also they can be used to adjust particle diameter (translation p.4 paragraph 3). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use the inorganic salts with anionic surfactants described by Ueda to increase dispersion stability for suspension polymerization in Sakamoto, or to adjust particle diameter.
Regarding claim 10, Sakamoto describes an acrylic ester unit which can be butyl acrylate (paragraph 7).
Regarding claim 11, Sakamoto describes expanded particles (p.9 middle of page “expansion ratio was measured by heating steam”).
Regarding claim 12, Park describes a molded product by molding the methyl methacrylate particles (paragraph 17, 19).
Regarding claim 13, Park’s molded product is capable of acting as an evaporative pattern, therefore it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 14, Park’s molded product is capable of acting as an evaporative pattern configured to be replace with a molten metal, therefore it meets the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument p.9-10 of Remarks submitted 9/22/25 has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant states that the instant specification demonstrates unexpected results when the amount of 1,6 hexanediol diacrylate is 0.17 parts by weight or less. This is not found convincing. First, the rating "Excellent " is only demonstrated at 0.10 parts, meaning any value between 0.10 to 0.18 could be the defining line between "Good" and "Excellent" and the criticality of 0.17 parts is not demonstrated.
Second, overcoming a §103 rejection based on unexpected results requires the combination of three different elements: the results must fairly compare with the prior art, the claims must be commensurate in scope and the results must truly be unexpected. (See MPEP §716.02) Applicant' s showing of allegedly unexpected results does not satisfy any of these requirements. For example, the claims are not commensurate in scope with the allegedly unexpected findings. The independent claims are open to any additional polymers or additives, which would affect the particles’ properties including the allegedly unexpected property.
Applicant’s argument p.11 final paragraph-p.12 paragraph 2 has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant states that Park teaches combinations of polystyrene/polymethyl methacrylate particles and thus cannot be applied to the instant invention, which requires a low level of aromatic vinyl compound. This is not found convincing because Park describes polystyrene AND/OR polymethylmethacrylate (paragraph 19). Park does not teach away from purely polymethylmethacrylate particles.
Applicant’s argument p.13 paragraph 1 has been considered but is not found convincing. Applicant argues that Sakamoto teaches away from solvents in the claimed amounts. This is not found convincing because Sakamoto is fine with the presence of cyclohexane because he describes it as an optional blowing agent in amounts even higher than applicant’s citation and claimed amounts (paragraph 19). Also Sakamoto states there is “no problem using these” regarding solvents in general (paragraph 20), even if they are not a preferred embodiment. Proper motivation to add cyclohexane in the claimed amount is presented in view of Suzuki above.
Applicant’s argument p.13 paragraph 2 has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant states that Sakamoto does not teach a poorly water-soluble salt as required in new claims 9-14. This is not convincing because new secondary art JP 2006241256 by Ueda et al does describe a poorly water-soluble salt and motivation to add it to Sakamoto’s invention. See rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTINA W ROSEBACH whose telephone number is (571)270-7154. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-3:30pm.
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 5712721302. 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.
/CHRISTINA H.W. ROSEBACH/Examiner, Art Unit 1766