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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-22, in the reply filed on December 5, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that the subject matter of Groups I and II are similar enough that they could be covered by the same search. This is not found persuasive because the groups of inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification. Therefore, the search would be a burden and applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 23-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on December 5, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 19, in line 3 of claim 19, “components” should not be plural.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, in line 4, “190° C/2.16 kg” is enclosed in parentheses. It is unclear if this phrase is meant to be part of the claim. For the purpose of further examination, it will be considered as part of the claim. However, correction is still required.
Regarding claim 5, in line 2, “230° C/2.16 kg” is enclosed in parentheses. It is unclear if this phrase is meant to be part of the claim. For the purpose of further examination, it will be considered as part of the claim. However, correction is still required.
Regarding claim 9, in line 2, “230° C/2.16 kg” is enclosed in parentheses. It is unclear if this phrase is meant to be part of the claim. For the purpose of further examination, it will be considered as part of the claim. However, correction is still required.
Regarding claim 12, in line 5, “190° C/2.16 kg” is enclosed in parentheses. It is unclear if this phrase is meant to be part of the claim. For the purpose of further examination, it will be considered as part of the claim. However, correction is still required.
Regarding claims 2-4, 6-8, 10, 11, and 13-22, these claims depend from a rejected claim and include all of the limitations thereof. Therefore, they are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8-15, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gorin et al. (WO 2021/071889).
Regarding claims 1-3, 8-10, 15, and 18, Gorin et al. teaches a thermoplastic elastomer material used in additive manufacturing (additive manufacture feedstock). Sample Number 4 in Table 1 of Gorin et al. teaches a composition comprising 60% by weight of a post-consumer recycled polyolefin (PCRPO) that is majority high density polyethylene (HDPE) and has a melt index of 0.764 g/10 min at 190° C at 2.16 kg (¶98); and 40% by weight of an olefin block copolymer comprising 19.9% by weight of propylene polymer, 47.6% by weight of ethylene polymer, and has a melt flow rate of 9.5 g/10 min at 230° C and 2.16 kg (¶98). The thermoplastic elastomer material has an ethylene content of at least 55% by weight.
Gorin et al. does not teach that the additive-manufacture feedstock, when in the form of a printed article, exhibits an improved printability characterized by an improved warpage-resistance rating of at least 20%, as compared to a printed article made from the same ethylene polymer without the blended component in the additive-manufacture feedstock. The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference teaches all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. Moreover, the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amounts. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e., an improved warpage-resistance rating of at least 20%, would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
Regarding claims 11-14, these claims further define optional components of claim 1 and therefore these claim limitations are also optional.
Regarding claim 19, the whole composition in Sample Number 4 of Gorin et al. is a “polymeric fraction” that consists of the ethylene polymer and the polypropylene polymer additive component.
Regarding claims 20-22, Gorin et al. teaches that the thermoplastic polymeric material is in the form of pellets, powders, or filaments (¶1).
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.
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 4, 5, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorin et al. (WO 2021/071889) as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Gorin et al. teaches that the composition can comprise the olefin block copolymer in 25 to 95% by weight (¶110). If the CBC 1 block copolymer were included in an amount of 55% by weight, the amount of propylene in the composition would be about 11% (calculated by Examiner; 0.199*.55*100).
Regarding claim 5, Gorin et al. does not teach a melt flow index for the entire composition. However, broadly, the composition comprises from 5 to 75% by weight of the post-consumer recycled polyolefin and from 25 to 95% by weight of the olefin block copolymer (¶110). The recycled polyolefin has a melt index of 0.1 to 40 g/10 min (¶34) and the block copolymer has a melt flow rate of 0.1 to 1000 g/10 min (¶49). Both of the components can have a melt index/melt flow rate of over 3 g/10 min so therefore, the composition can also have one of at least 3 g/10 min.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Gorin et al. teaches that the composition may further optional components such as fillers like talc, glass beads, or calcium carbonate (¶83). At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a filler such as talc, glass beads, or calcium carbonate in the composition, and would have been motivated to do so in order to add reinforcement to the composition. Additionally, Gorin et al. teaches that talc, glass beads, or calcium carbonate are suitable fillers for compositions used for additive manufacturing.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorin et al. (WO 2021/071889) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Duchateau et al. (EP 3778753).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Gorin et al. teaches the composition of claim 1 as set forth above. Gorin et al. does not teach that the ethylene polymer, specifically the HDPE polymer, is a copolymer comprising at least one of propylene, 1-butene, 1-pentene, isobutene, 1-hexane, or 1-octene. However, Duchateau et al. teaches a composition comprising more than 50% by weight of polyethylene that is used for 3D printing/additive manufacture (¶6, 82), wherein the polyethylene can be HDPE that is a copolymer with butene or hexene (¶22). Gorin et al. and Duchateau et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely that of polyolefin compositions useful as feedstocks for additive manufacture processes. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a HDPE copolymerized with butene or hexene, as taught by Duchateau et al., in the composition, as taught by Gorin et al., and would have been motivated to do so in order to modify the properties of the feedstock by varying the monomers and their content. Additionally, Duchateau et al. teaches that this copolymer is suitable for use in additive manufacturing/3D printing compositions.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA C SCOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00, 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/ANGELA C SCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights