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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/11/2025 has been entered. Claims 3 and 9 have been amended. Claims 1-2 remain withdrawn from consideration. Accordingly, claims 1-13 remain pending, and claims 3-13 are the claims addressed and examined below.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 3 and 9 have overcome the claim objections previously set forth in the Office action mailed 08/12/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 3-13 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a new reference found in an updated search of the claims (see Lee et al. (US 2020/0173060), as applied in the rejections below).
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement (i.e., US 2012/0177854 in paragraph [0014] of the specification as filed, and WO 2018/020192 in paragraph [0015] of the specification as filed). 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 [AltContent: rect]against the later invention.
Claims 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 106866948; of record, citation drawn to the translated version provided herewith) in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0173060).
As to claim 3: Zhang discloses the claimed method for producing a 3D-printed object (i.e., 3D printing a product having a small shrinkage rate, a good dimensional stability and a high strength) (Zhang at page 1, paragraph 5; page 3, paragraph 1; page 8, paragraph 4) comprising the following steps of:
providing a thermoplastic polyester (i.e., preparing an amorphous copolyester to be used as a
material for 3D printing by reacting at least two dibasic acids and at least two diols) (Zhang at page 1, paragraphs 6-8; page 3, paragraph 1) comprising at least one 1,4:3,6-dianhydrohexitol unit (A) (i.e., one diol is isosorbide; referring to Applicant’s specification as filed, paragraph [0033] states that “monomer (A) is a 1,4:3,6-dianhydrohexitol that may be isosorbide, isomannide, isoidide, or a mixture thereof. Preferably, the 1,4:3,6- dianhydrohexitol (A) is isosorbide”; therefore, ZHANG’s disclosure of isosorbide corresponds to the claimed 1,4:3,6-dianhydrohexitol unit (A)) (Zhang at page 1, paragraph 11; page 5, paragraph 6 – Example 6: a mixture containing 1.65 moles of isosorbide),
at least one butanediol unit (B) other than 1,4:3,6-dianhydrohexitol units (A) (i.e., one diol is 1,4
butanediol) (Zhang at page 1, paragraph 11; page 5, paragraph 6 – Example 6: a mixture containing 1.65 moles of isosorbide and 1.35 moles of 1,4 butanediol),
at least one terephthalic acid unit (C) (i.e., the dibasic acid is terephthalic acid) (Zhang at page
1, paragraph 10; page 5, paragraph 6 – Example 6: a mixture containing 1.0 mole of terephthalic acid, 1.65 moles of isosorbide, and 1.35 moles of 1,4 butanediol),
wherein a molar ratio (A)/[(A)+(B)] is of at least 0.01 and of at most 0.60 (i.e., Example 6: a mixture containing 1.0 mole of terephthalic acid (C), 1.65 moles of isosorbide (A), and 1.35 moles of 1,4 butanediol (B); therefore, the molar ratio (1.65)/[(1.65)+(1.35)] is 0.55, falling within the claimed range of 0.01 to 0.60) (Zhang at page 5, paragraph 6),
said polyester being free of any alicyclic diol units or comprising a molar amount of alicyclic diol units, relative to all monomer units of the polyester, of less than 5% (i.e., referring to Example 6, the mixture contains 1.0 mole of terephthalic acid (C), 1.65 moles of isosorbide (A), 1.35 moles of 1,4 butanediol (B), and 1.0 mole of isophthalic acid; consequently, this mixture is free of any alicyclic diol units or comprises a molar amount of alicyclic diol units, relative to all monomer units of the polyester, of less than 5%) (Zhang at page 5, paragraph 6), and
shaping the thermoplastic polyester obtained in the preceding step (i.e., the copolyester can be
prepared by an extrusion method to prepare a wire for FDM printing according to the requirement of 3D printing, or a powder to be produced for SLS by a pulverizing method) (Zhang at page 3, paragraph 1; page 8, paragraph 4),
3D-printing an object from the shaped thermoplastic polyester (i.e., the copolyester is used for
forming objects/products via 3D printing processes such as FDM or SLS) (Zhang at page 3, paragraph 1; page 8, paragraph 4), and
recovering the 3D-printed object (i.e., by 3D printing the copolyester, the obtained product
has a small shrinkage rate, a good dimensional stability, and a high strength) (Zhang at page 8,
paragraph 4).
Zhang discloses the intrinsic viscosity of the examples being measured by mixing phenol-tetrachloroethane in a mass ration of 1:1 as a mixed solution and measuring at 25oC, such that the mixture of Example 6 has an intrinsic viscosity of 1.47 dL/g (Zhang at page 3, paragraph 9; page 5, paragraphs 6 and 8); though, Zhang fails to explicitly disclose the claimed a reduced viscosity measured at 35 oC in a solution obtained by dissolving 5 g/L of said polyester in a solution containing 50% of phenol and 50% of ortho-dichlorobenzene greater than 40 mL/g and less than 120 mL/g.
However, Lee teaches a polyester fiber, a preparation method thereof and a molded articled prepared from the polyester fiber (Lee at [0002]). Lee further teaches the use of the polyester fiber providing for various uses including in 3D printers (Lee at [0012]). The polyester fiber taught by Lee is formed from a polyester resin polymerized with a dicarboxylic acid including terephthalic acid, a diol including isosorbide, and a diol moiety derived from isosorbide and diethylene glycol, such as 1,4-butanediol (Lee at [0016], [0046]).
Moreover, Lee teaches the polyester resin forming the polyester fiber having an intrinsic viscosity of 0.45 to 1.5 dL/g (i.e., converts to an intrinsic viscosity of 45 mL/g to 150 mL/g) as measured at 35oC after dissolving it in orthochlorophenol at a concentration of 1.2 g/dL (Lee at [0024], [0086]); and given the intrinsic viscosity is the reduced viscosity extrapolated to zero concentration, one can safely assume Applicant’s reduced viscosity greater than 40 mL/g and less than 120 mL/g is met (i.e., reduced viscosity measured at 35 oC in a solution obtained by dissolving 5 g/L of said polyester in a solution containing 50% of phenol and 50% of ortho-dichlorobenzene greater than 40 mL/g and less than 120 mL/g)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a reduced viscosity measured at 35 oC in a solution obtained by dissolving 5 g/L of said polyester in a solution containing 50% of phenol and 50% of ortho-dichlorobenzene greater than 40 mL/g and less than 120 mL/g as such is known in the art of preparing polyester fibers for 3D printing given the discussion of Lee above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so enabling a polyester fiber to be formed which can withstand defects to appearance during molding as well as secure sufficient mechanical strength during molding, resulting in a molded article having excellent chemical resistance, light resistance, strength, and capable of maintaining high transparency (as recognized by Lee at [0012], [0024]).
As to claim 4: Zhang and Lee teach the method of claim 3. Zhang further discloses the claimed wherein in step b) the thermoplastic polyester is in the form of a yarn, of filament, of a rod, of granules, of pellets or of powder (i.e., the copolyester can be prepared by an extrusion method to prepare a wire for FDM printing according to the requirement of 3D printing, or a powder to be produced for SLS by a pulverizing method) (Zhang at page 3, paragraph 1; page 8, paragraph 4).
As to claim 5: Zhang and Lee teach the method of claim 3. Zhang further discloses the claimed wherein the 3D-printing step c) is carried out using the fused deposition modeling technique or using the selective laser sintering technique (i.e., the prepared copolyester is used as a material for 3D printing, such as an extruder extruded into an FDM application or pulverized to prepare SLS for printing powder) (Zhang at page 3, paragraph 1; page 8, paragraph 4).
As to claim 6: Zhang and Lee teach the method of claim 3. Zhang further discloses the claimed wherein the 1,4:3,6-dianhydrohexitol (A) is isosorbide (i.e., one diol is isosorbide) (Zhang at page 1, paragraph 11; page 5, paragraph 6 – Example 6: a mixture containing 1.65 moles of isosorbide).
As to claim 7: Zhang and Lee teach the method of claim 3. Zhang further discloses the claimed wherein the polyester is free of alicyclic diol units or comprises a molar amount of alicyclic diol units, relative to all the monomeric units of the polyester, of less than 1%, preferably the polyester is free of alicyclic diol units (i.e., referring to Example 6, the mixture contains 1.0 mole of terephthalic acid (C), 1.65 moles of isosorbide (A), 1.35 moles of 1,4 butanediol (B), and 1.0 mole of isophthalic acid; consequently, this mixture is free of alicyclic diol units or comprises a molar amount of alicyclic diol units, relative to all the monomeric units of the polyester, of less than 1%, preferably the polyester is free of alicyclic diol units) (Zhang at page 5, paragraph 6).
As to claim 8: Zhang and Lee teach the method of claim 3. Zhang further discloses the claimed wherein the polyester is free of 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol, 1,2-cyclohexanedimethanol, 1,3-cyclohexanedimethanol or a mixture of these diols (i.e., referring to Example 6, the mixture contains 1.0 mole of terephthalic acid (C), 1.65 moles of isosorbide (A), 1.35 moles of 1,4 butanediol (B), and 1.0 mole of isophthalic acid; consequently, this mixture is free of 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol, 1,2-cyclohexanedimethanol, 1,3-cyclohexanedimethanol or a mixture of these diols) (Zhang at page 5, paragraph 6).
As to claim 9: Zhang and Lee teach teach the method of claim 3. Lee further teaches the claimed wherein the molar ratio (1,4:3,6-dianhydrohexitol unit (A) + butanediol unit (B))/(terephthalic acid unit (C)) is from 1.05 to 1.5 (Lee at [0046], [0121] – Example 2).
As to claim 10: Zhang and Lee teach the method of claim 3. Lee further teaches the claimed wherein the 3D-printed object comprises one or several additive(s) (i.e., the polyester fiber can further comprise at least one additive selected from the group consisting of carbon black, a UV screening agent, an antistatic agent, an impact modifier, an antioxidant, and fine particles) (Lee at [0025], [0053], [0054]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 3.
As to claim 11: Zhang and Lee teach the method of claim 3. Zhang, modified by Lee, further reads on the claimed the 3D-printed object comprising a thermoplastic polyester (i.e., the copolyester is used for forming objects/products via 3D printing processes such as FDM or SLS) (Zhang at page 3, paragraph 1; page 8, paragraph 4) comprising:
at least one 1,4:3,6-dianhydrohexitol unit (A) (i.e., one diol is isosorbide; referring to Applicant’s specification as filed, paragraph [0033] states that “monomer (A) is a 1,4:3,6-dianhydrohexitol that may be isosorbide, isomannide, isoidide, or a mixture thereof. Preferably, the 1,4:3,6- dianhydrohexitol (A) is isosorbide”; therefore, ZHANG’s disclosure of isosorbide corresponds to the claimed 1,4:3,6-dianhydrohexitol unit (A)) (Zhang at page 1, paragraph 11; page 5, paragraph 6 – Example 6: a mixture containing 1.65 moles of isosorbide);
at least one butanediol unit (B) (i.e., one diol is 1,4 butanediol) (Zhang at page 1, paragraph 11; page 5, paragraph 6 – Example 6: a mixture containing 1.65 moles of isosorbide and 1.35 moles of 1,4 butanediol);
at least one terephthalic acid unit (C) (i.e., the dibasic acid is terephthalic acid) (Zhang at page 1, paragraph 10; page 5, paragraph 6 – Example 6: a mixture containing 1.0 mole of terephthalic acid, 1.65 moles of isosorbide, and 1.35 moles of 1,4 butanediol);
wherein the molar ratio (A)/[(A)+(B)] is at least 0.01 and of at most 0.60 (i.e., Example 6: a mixture containing 1.0 mole of terephthalic acid (C), 1.65 moles of isosorbide (A), and 1.35 moles of 1,4 butanediol (B); therefore, the molar ratio (1.65)/[(1.65)+(1.35)] is 0.55, falling within the claimed range of 0.01 to 0.60) (Zhang at page 5, paragraph 6);
said polyester being free of alicyclic diol units or comprising a molar amount of alicyclic diol units, relative to all the monomer units of the polyester, of less than 5% (i.e., referring to Example 6, the mixture contains 1.0 mole of terephthalic acid (C), 1.65 moles of isosorbide (A), 1.35 moles of 1,4 butanediol (B), and 1.0 mole of isophthalic acid; consequently, this mixture is free of any alicyclic diol units or comprises a molar amount of alicyclic diol units, relative to all monomer units of the polyester, of less than 5%) (Zhang at page 5, paragraph 6), and
the reduced viscosity measured at 35°C on a solution obtained by dissolving 5 g/L of said polyester in a solution of orthochlorophenol is greater than 40 mL/g and less than 120 mL/g (i.e., the polyester resin forming the polyester fiber having an intrinsic viscosity of 0.45 to 1.5 dL/g as measured at 35oC after dissolving it in orthochlorophenol at a concentration of 1.2 g/dL; and given the intrinsic viscosity is the reduced viscosity extrapolated to zero concentration, one can safely assume Applicant’s reduced viscosity greater than 40 mL/g and less than 120 mL/g is met) (Lee at [0024], [0086]).
Additionally, Lee further reads on the claimed wherein the 3D-printed object comprises a polymer mixture consisting of said thermoplastic polyester and one or several additional polymer(s) (i.e., a stabilizer, a coloring agent, a crystallizing agent, and a branching agent may be added to the slurry) (Lee at [0053], [0054], [0055], [0056]), said mixture comprising at least 30% by weight of thermoplastic polyester relative to the total weight of said mixture (Lee at [0046], [0053], [0054], [0055], [0056]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 3.
As to claim 12: Zhang and Lee teach the method of claim 3. Zhang further teaches the claimed wherein the polyester is free of alicyclic diol units (i.e., referring to Example 6, the mixture contains 1.0 mole of terephthalic acid (C), 1.65 moles of isosorbide (A), 1.35 moles of 1,4 butanediol (B), and 1.0 mole of isophthalic acid; consequently, this mixture is free of alicyclic diol units) (Zhang at page 5, paragraph 6).
As to claim 13: Zhang and Lee teach the method of claim 11. Lee further teaches the claimed wherein said one or several additional polymer(s) is/are being chosen from polyesters, such as polybutyl terephthalate (PBT), polylactic acid (PLA), polybutyl succinate (PBS), polybutyl succinate adipate (PBSA), polyethylene terephthalate PET, glycated polyethylene terephthalate (PETg), polycarbonates (PC), polyamides (PA), acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), thermoplastic polyurethanes (TPU), polyetheretherketone(PEEK), polyacrylates (i.e., polyamide resin added as a crystallizing agent) (Lee at [0056]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAILEIGH K. DARNELL whose telephone number is (469)295-9287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, MST.
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, Galen H. Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/BAILEIGH KATE DARNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1743