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 .
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.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the Descamps article in Applied Science.
Descamps exemplifies (table 1) a polyesters from isosorbide (ie applicant’s dianhydrohexitol), ethylene glycol and terephthalic acid. 16 moles of the terephthalic acid is reacted with 19.2 total moles of the two diols (page 2). The amount of isosorbide is 4.9-20.8mol% (page 4). It is unclear whether this value is relative to both diols or relative to all units (diols + terephthalic acid).
In either case, applicant’s wide A/(A + B) ratio is easily met. For instance, for the Descamps example of 10.9 mol% isosorbide:
if % based on diols if % based on diols + terephthalic acid
A = 0.109 x 19.2 = 2.09 A = 0.109 x (19.2 + 16) = 3.84
A + B = 19.2 A + B = 19.2
A/(A +B) = 2.09/19.2 = 0.108 A/(A + B) = 3.84/19.2 = 0.2
The reduced viscosity of >40ml/g is met for each PEIT. Descamps (conclusion) suggests the polyester is for optical applications, food contact items and fibers – all of which are “objects”
Descamps does not suggest 3D printing the object. However, applicant’s claim is product by process in nature. An 3D printed object is indistinguishable from the same object molded by any other method. See MPEP 2113 regarding treatment of product by process claims.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee 2020/0173060.
Lee exemplifies (#1) a polyester fiber from 2.3mol isosorbide (ie applicant’s dianhydrohexitol), 17.2mol ethylene glycol, 0.4mol diethylene glycol and 19.7mol terephthalic acid and coloring agent. The A/(A + B) ratio would be 2.3/(17.2 + 2.3) or 0.12.
The intrinsic viscosity at a concentration of 1.2g/dl (ie 0.12g/L) in orthochlorophenol (paragraph 86) is 0.98dl/g (paragraph 119) or 98ml/g. Intrinsic viscosity is defined as the reduced viscosity extrapolated to zero concentration. At applicant’s claimed higher measurement concentration of 5g/L, the viscosity (ie applicant’s “reduced viscosity”) would necessarily be greater than the 98ml/g intrinsic viscosity.
The fiber is useful for 3D printers (paragraph 83) – necessarily resulting a 3D printed object.
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 3,4,6-8,10 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee 2020/0173060.
Lee applies as explained above.
Lee produces a polyester corresponding to applicant’s polyester. This applicant’s step “a”. Lee (paragraph 120) forms the polyester into a fiber which is applicant’s step “b”. Lee (paragraph 83) suggests forming said fiber into a molded article utilizing a 3D printer. This is applicant’s step “c”. While Lee does not clearly state “recovering the printed object”, obviously the object must be removed from the printer in order to be used in whatever context the object is intended for.
In regard to applicant’s dependent claims:
The coloring agent qualifies as applicant’s additive of claim 10.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee 2020/0173060 optionally in view of Kanada 2015/0367571.
Lee applies as explained above.
Lee does not term the 3D printing of the fiber as being “fused deposition modeling”.
It is well known in the art that fused deposition modeling is the primary method of 3D printing thermoplastic fibers/filaments. Anyone of ordinary skill seeing Lee’s suggestion of 3D printing his thermoplastic fiber would immediately envision fused deposition modeling. Kanada (paragraph 1,11) confirms fused deposition modeling is considered 3D printing.
Fused deposition modeling is the obvious 3D printing technique for Lee’s polyester fiber.
Claims 2-4,6-8,10-12 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen WO2021/255098 in view of Lee 2021/0171706 or the Descamps article in Applied Science.
Anderson claims (#1) a toy building element of poly(ethylene terephthalate) and impact modifiers where some the ethylene glycol of the PET has been replaced with another diol such as isosorbide. Such a polyester of ethylene glycol, isosorbide (ie applicant’s dianhydrohexitol) and terephthalic acid is applicant’s polyester.
The IV of the polyester is 0.6-1.1dl/g (page 11 line 10).
Powders of the toy building composition can be additively manufactured (page 33 line 28-33) which is considered 3D printing.
Andersen does not teach any particular amount of isosorbide in the modified PET.
Lee (example 1) and Descamps (table 1) both teach isosorbide modified PET with isosorbide/(EG + terephthalic acid) ratios within applicant’s range (see previous rejections above) have good properties.
It would have been obvious to utilize any previously known isosorbide modified PET as Anderson’s polyester.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
Andersen’s converting the composition into a powder meets applicant’s step “b” of claim 3 and 4. The additive manufacturing is applicant’s step “c”. While Andersen does not clearly state “recovering the printing object”, obviously the object must be removed from the printer in order to be used as a toy building brick.
Andersen suggests additives (page 30 line 12) meeting applicant’s claim 10.
Andersen’s impact modifier may be acrylic (page 25 line 26). Fillers may include PMMA or ABS (page 14 line 4,7) all which meet applicant’s claim 11. The ABS meets applicant’s claim 14.
Andersen (page 8 line 24) states the toy building element may comprise “at least one polyester”. Andersen (page 14 line 35-36) suggests polyester may be a mixture of bio-based and petroleum-based polyesters. Andersen (page 19 line 2-7) suggests combinations of polyester that include recycled polyesters. Any of these teachings meet applicant’s claim 13 which requires a second polyester.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Descamps is not directed to 3D printed objects.
The rejection never stated Descamps teaches 3D printed objects. The rejection is/was premised on the claim’s “3D printed” language as being product process in nature. There is no reason to believe an object made through 3D printing is indistinguishable from the same shaped object made through injection molding, extrusion molding etc as long as the same composition was used.
Applicant argues that Descamps does not disclose applicant’s A/(A + B) ratio.
This is not convincing. As pointed out in the first office action, there are only two possible interpretations of Descamps’ stated isosorbide %. One is based on the total diols used. The other is based on the total of all diols + terephthalic acid. No matter which is assumed, both fall within applicant’s very broad A/(A + B).
Applicant argues that Lee’s suggestion of using his polyester fiber for 3D printers does not suggest a 3D printed object.
This is unconvincing. The only use for 3D printers is to make 3D printed objects. A reference suggesting 3D printing necessarily suggests 3D printed objects.
Applicant argues that Lee’s polyester of 98ml/g intrinsic viscosity would not necessarily meet applicant’s reduced viscosity of >40ml/g. As all of ordinary skill in the art recognize, intrinsic viscosity is reduced viscosity extrapolated to zero concentration. If Lee’s reported intrinsic viscosity is already higher than 40ml/g, then at higher concentrations (eg 5g/L of applicant) the reduced viscosity must be even greater than 98ml/g. The Dey article in CEJ is cited its general explanation of a polymer’s viscosities. Dey depicts how reduced viscosity declines as concentration declines with the y-intercept (zero concentration) being intrinsic viscosity (see fig 5).
Applicant criticizes the Andersen based rejection for not excluding alicyclic diols.
This is not convincing. Andersen does not require the presence of alicyclic diols. Andersen’s claim 1 is clear that the polyethylene terephthalate can have some of its ethylene replaced by isosorbide or by other diols. Nowhere does Andersen require the use of an alicyclic diol. Both of the secondary reference exemplify polyesters lacking alicyclic diol. Applicant simply chooses to claim less than entire range of possibilities suggested by Andersen.
Applicant criticizes Anderson for including impact modifiers.
This argument is inconsistent with applicant’s claim 11 requiring the presence of any second polymer.
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 DAVID J BUTTNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-3pm.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/DAVID J BUTTNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765 3/20/26