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 .
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.
Claims 2-3, 5, 7, 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Claims 2, 13 contain the trademarks/trade names: Solvent Green 7, Acid Yellow 184, Acid Yellow 250, Yellow 101, Basic Yellow 40, Solvent Yellow 43, Solvent Yellow 44, Solvent Yellow 85, Solvent Yellow 145, and Solvent Yellow 160:1.
Claims 3, 5, 9-10, 14-15 contain the trademark/trade name: Solvent Green 7. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademarks/trade names are used to identify/describe dyes which are chemical compounds, and, accordingly, without the corresponding chemical formulae, the identifications/descriptions are deemed to be indefinite in the absence of a clear showing to the contrary.
Claim 7 contains the term “active” after the lower limit but not the upper limit of the amount of UV light absorber in line 3, and after the upper limit but not the lower limit of the amount of the co-solvent in line 9. It is unclear which values within the ranges are “active” and which are not. For the purposes of examination, the term “active” is treated as to have been intended for both upper and lower limits, and hence to apply to all the values with the respective ranges.
It is unclear in claims 11-12, what is encompassed by the term “detailing agent”. What does the detailing agent do? Does it provide more detailed features, or does it modify the UV light fusing agent in some chemical and/or physical way(s), in which case, it is also unclear what the chemical and/or physical ways are.
Claims 13-15 depend on and include all the subject matter of claim 11, but fail to provide any solutions to the indefinite issue described above.
Clarification and/or amendment, with relevant citation(s) from the specification and/or teaching references are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a/1,2) as being anticipated by Stengel (US 5,084,327).
Regarding claims 1-2, Stengel teaches an agent comprising: Basic Yellow 40 dye (col 3, lines 43-48) which is a fluorescent yellow dye that is a UV light absorber; a liquid vehicle (water, col 3, lines 43-48) including a surfactant (sodium alkylbenzene sulfonic acid, col 4, lines 6-7, sodium alkylbenzene sulfonate used as Tenside, col 2, lines 51-52); a co-solvent (hexanetriol, col 4, line 15, used to influence the drying conditions of the … liquid, col 2, lines 54-56); and a balance of water (water add up to 100%, col 4, lines 1-2); wherein the agent is devoid of a saccharide since there is no mention of a saccharide (cols 2-4).
Although Stengel fails to teach that the agent is an ultraviolet (UV) light fusing agent for three-dimensional (3D) printing, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. If there were to be any differences in structure or chemistry, these differences are presumed to be minor and obvious in the absence of evidence to the contrary. In the instant case, Stengel teaches the agent comprising the presently claimed composition of the ultraviolet (UV) light fusing agent for three-dimensional (3D) printing, as described above.
Regarding claim 4, Stengel teaches that the agent further comprises a base (aqueous buffer, col 3, lines 43-44, NaOH, col 2, lines 57-60).
Regarding claim 7, Stengel teaches that the UV light absorber is present in the UV light fusing agent in an amount of 2.0 wt% active (Basic Yellow 40 dye, col 3, lines 45-46) which is within the claimed range of from about 2 wt% active to about 10 wt% active, based on a total weight of the UV light fusing agent; the surfactant is present in the UV light fusing agent in an amount of 2 wt% active (sodium alkylbenzene sulfonic acid, col 4, lines 6-7) which is within the claimed range of from about 0.5 wt% active to about 2 wt% active, based on a total weight of the UV light fusing agent; and the co-solvent is present in the UV light fusing agent in an amount of 10 wt% active (hexanetriol, col 2, line 54, col 4, lines 10-16) which is within the claimed range of from about 5 wt% active to about 20 wt% active, based on a total weight of the UV light fusing agent.
Regarding claim 8, Stengel teaches a method for making an agent comprising steps of: selecting Basic Yellow 40 dye (col 3, lines 43-48) which is a pH-switchable fluorescent yellow dye that absorbs at least some ultraviolet wavelengths; incorporating the pH-switchable fluorescent yellow dye into a liquid vehicle (water, col 3, lines 43-48), thereby forming the agent (liquid, col 3, line 43); and adjusting a pH of the agent (adjusted to a pH value of from 3 to 5, col 4, lines 33-34) to achieve a targeted wavelength of maximum absorption (acid pH-region, acts to intensify the color, col 1, lines 55-56).
Although Stengel fails to teach that the agent is an ultraviolet (UV) light fusing agent having a wavelength of maximum absorption targeted for a three-dimensional (3D) printing system, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. If there were to be any differences in structure or chemistry, these differences are presumed to be minor and obvious in the absence of evidence to the contrary. In the instant case, Stengel teaches the agent comprising the presently claimed composition of the ultraviolet (UV) light fusing agent having a wavelength of maximum absorption targeted for a three-dimensional (3D) printing system, as described above.
Claims 1-2, 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a/1,2) as being anticipated by Duez (US 2004/0065226).
Regarding claims 1-2, Duez teaches an agent comprising: Solvent Green 7 ([0021]) which is a fluorescent yellow dye that is a UV light absorber; a liquid vehicle (colored liquid composition [0020] comprising water [0023]) including a surfactant (neutralized triethanolamine [0040] as the component having surface tension greater than 40 mN/m [0035]); a co-solvent (primary alcohol [0025]); and a balance of water (10% to 30% [0023]); wherein the agent is devoid of a saccharide (no mention of a saccharide [0020-0040]).
Although Duez fails to teach that the agent is an ultraviolet (UV) light fusing agent for three-dimensional (3D) printing, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. If there were to be any differences in structure or chemistry, these differences are presumed to be minor and obvious in the absence of evidence to the contrary. In the instant case, Duez teaches the agent comprising the presently claimed composition of the ultraviolet (UV) light fusing agent for three-dimensional (3D) printing, as described above.
Regarding claim 4, Duez teaches that the agent which can be a UV light fusing agent, further comprises a base (un-neutralized portion of triethanolamine [0022]).
Regarding claim 5, Duez teaches that the fluorescent yellow dye is Solvent Green 7 ([0021]) and that a pH of the agent which can be a UV light fusing agent, that includes the Solvent Green 7 as the fluorescent yellow dye which is the UV absorber, is within the claimed range of from about 8 to about 9 (range 8 to 9 [0026]) which are conditions for the Solvent Green 7, and hence the UV light fusing agent, to exhibit maximum absorption at a wavelength of about 455 nm, as disclosed in Applicant’s specification (Table 1 [0107]).
Regarding claim 6, Duez teaches that the agent which can be a UV light fusing agent, is devoid of a pigment or other dye, meaning that aside from the fluorescent yellow dye that is a UV light absorber (Solvent Green 7 [0021]), there is no other pigment or dye that absorbs other light, as defined by the specification ([0022]).
Regarding claim 7, Duez teaches that the UV light absorber is present in the agent which can be a UV light fusing agent, in an amount of 3 wt% active (pyranine (color index solvent green 7 [0021], pyranine [0040]) which is within the claimed range of from about 2 wt% active to about 10 wt% active, based on a total weight of the UV light fusing agent; the surfactant is present in the UV light fusing agent in an amount of 0.55 wt% active to 2.5 wt% active (neutralized triethanolamine [0040]) which overlaps the claimed range of from about 0.5 wt% active to about 2 wt% active, based on a total weight of the UV light fusing agent; and the co-solvent can be present in the UV light fusing agent in an amount of 20 wt% active (primary alcohol [0020]) which is within the claimed range of from about 5 wt% active to about 20 wt% active, based on a total weight of the UV light fusing agent.
Regarding claim 8, Duez teaches a method for making an agent comprising steps of: selecting Solvent Green 7 ([0021]) which is a pH-switchable fluorescent yellow dye that is a UV light absorber; incorporating the pH-switchable fluorescent yellow dye into a liquid vehicle, thereby forming the agent (colored liquid composition [0020]); and adjusting a pH of the agent (neutralize the triethanolamine in part so as to reach a pH in the range of 8-9 [0026]) to achieve a targeted wavelength of maximum absorption (necessary for revealing the intense fluorescent yellow effect [0026]).
Although Duez fails to teach that the agent is an ultraviolet (UV) light fusing agent having a wavelength of maximum absorption targeted for a three-dimensional (3D) printing system, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. If there were to be any differences in structure or chemistry, these differences are presumed to be minor and obvious in the absence of evidence to the contrary. In the instant case, Duez teaches the agent comprising the presently claimed composition of the ultraviolet (UV) light fusing agent having a wavelength of maximum absorption targeted for a three-dimensional (3D) printing system, as described above.
Regarding claim 9, Duez teaches that the pH-switchable fluorescent dye is Solvent Green 7 ([0021]); and that the step of adjusting the pH involves adding a base (un-neutralized portion of triethanolamine [0022]) resulting in a pH of from about 8 to about 9 (range 8 to 9 [0026]) which are conditions for the Solvent Green 7 to exhibit the targeted wavelength of maximum absorption of about 455 nm (necessary for revealing the intense fluorescent yellow effect [0026]), as disclosed in Applicant’s specification (Table 1 [0107]).
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 3, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duez as applied to claims 1-2, 4-9 above, and further in view of Lee (Clarivate Analytics English translation of KR-20170099521-A).
Regarding claim 3, Duez teaches the agent that has the presently claimed composition of the UV light fusing agent for 3D printing, and hence can be the UV light fusing agent comprising the UV light absorber consisting of the fluorescent yellow dye that is Solvent Green 7, as described above. In addition, Duez teaches that the pH of the UV light fusing agent comprising the fluorescent yellow dye that is Solvent Green 7, is within a range of from about 8 to about 9 (range 8 to 9 [0026]), but fails to teach that the pH is alternately within the claimed range of from about 4 to about 7.
However, Lee teaches that when the pH of the fluorescent yellow dye that is Solvent Green 7, is within a range of 7 or higher (pH 7 or higher, 2nd para of page 4) which overlaps the claimed range of from about 4 to about 7 at the upper limit, the wavelength of maximum absorption is within the visible wavelength range (shows a fluorescent yellow, 2nd para of page 4), and when the pH is within a range of below 5 (below pH 5, 2nd para of page 4) which overlaps the claimed range of from about 4 to about 7 at the lower limit, the wavelength of maximum absorption is shifted to a wavelength that is outside the visible wavelength range (colorless, 2nd para of page 4, pH of the ink acidic and plays a role in keeping the fluorescent dye colorless without becoming fluorescent yellow, last para of page 3), which includes the claimed range of from about 403 nm to about 404 nm, thus establishing the pH of the fluorescent yellow dye that is Solvent Green 7, as a result-effective variable which is adjusted for the purpose of providing the desired wavelength of maximum absorption.
Therefore, in the absence of a clear showing to the contrary, it would have been routine experimentation by, and hence obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have adjusted the pH of the UV light fusing agent of Duez, from one that is within a range of from about 8 to about 9, to one that is within a range of from about 4 to about 7, in order to obtain the desired wavelength of maximum absorption, as taught by Lee.
Accordingly, the UV light fusing agent of Duez, as modified by Lee, that includes Solvent Green 7 as the fluorescent yellow dye which is the UV light absorber, has a pH that is within a range of from about 4 to about 7, which are conditions for the Solvent Green 7 to exhibit a corresponding wavelength of maximum absorption that is within a range of from about 403 nm to about 404 nm, as disclosed in Applicant’s specification (Table 1 [0107]), for the purpose of providing the desired maximum absorption wavelength, as described above.
Regarding claim 10, Duez teaches the method for making an agent that has the presently claimed composition of the UV light fusing agent having a wavelength of maximum absorption targeted for a 3D printing system, and hence can be the UV light fusing agent, comprising steps of: selecting Solvent Green 7 which is a pH-switchable fluorescent yellow dye that absorbs at least some ultraviolet wavelengths; and incorporating the pH-switchable fluorescent yellow dye into a liquid vehicle, thereby forming the UV light fusing agent, as described above. In addition, Duez teaches that the incorporation of the pH-switchable fluorescent yellow dye into the liquid vehicle adjusts the pH to within a range of from about 8 to about 9 (range 8 to 9 [0026]), but fails to teach that the pH is alternately within the claimed range of from about 4 to about 7.
However, Lee teaches that when the incorporation of the fluorescent yellow dye that is Solvent Green 7 into a liquid vehicle, adjusts the pH to within a range of 7 or higher (pH 7 or higher, 2nd para of page 4) which overlaps the claimed range of from about 4 to about 7 at the upper limit, the targeted wavelength of maximum absorption is within the visible wavelength range (shows a fluorescent yellow, 2nd para of page 4), and when the incorporation of the fluorescent yellow dye that is Solvent Green 7 into a liquid vehicle adjusts the pH to within a range of below 5 (below pH 5, 2nd para of page 4) which overlaps the claimed range of from about 4 to about 7 at the lower limit, the targeted wavelength of maximum absorption is shifted to a wavelength that is outside the visible wavelength range (colorless, 2nd para of page 4, pH of the ink acidic and plays a role in keeping the fluorescent dye colorless without becoming fluorescent yellow, last para of page 3), which includes the claimed range of from about 403 nm to about 404 nm, thus establishing the pH of the fluorescent yellow dye that is Solvent Green 7, as a result-effective variable which is adjusted for the purpose of providing the desired targeted wavelength of maximum absorption.
Therefore, in the absence of a clear showing to the contrary, it would have been routine experimentation by, and hence obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have adjusted the pH of the formed UV light fusing agent that comprises the fluorescent yellow dye that is Solvent Green 7 as the UV light absorber, in the step of incorporation of the pH-switchable fluorescent yellow dye into the liquid vehicle, in the method for making an agent that has the presently claimed composition of the UV light fusing agent having a wavelength of maximum absorption targeted for a 3D printing system, of Duez, from one that is within a range of from about 8 to about 9, to one that is within a range of from about 4 to about 7, in order to obtain the desired targeted wavelength of maximum absorption, as taught by Lee.
Accordingly, the UV light fusing agent of Duez, as modified by Lee, that includes Solvent Green 7 as the fluorescent yellow dye which is the UV light absorber, has a pH that is within a range of from about 4 to about 7, which are conditions for the UV light fusing agent to have a corresponding wavelength of maximum absorption that is within a range of from about 403 nm to about 404 nm, as disclosed in Applicant’s specification (Table 1 [0107]), for the purpose of providing the desired targeted wavelength of maximum absorption, as described above.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (US 2018/0015663) in view of Yan (Clarivate Analytics English translation of CN-105759455-A).
Regarding claim 11, Zhao teaches a multi-fluid kit (printheads 106a and 106b may be used to selectively deliver a fusing agent and a detailing agent, respectively, when such agents are in the form of a suitable fluid [0018]) for three-dimensional (3D) printing ([0014]), comprising: a light fusing agent including: a light absorber ([0051]) and a liquid vehicle (aqueous vehicle [0018]); and a detailing agent; where the liquid vehicle includes a surfactant, a co-solvent, and a balance of water ([0018]). Zhao teaches that the light absorber is an IR, near-IR or visible light absorber, but fails to explicitly teach that it is alternately an ultraviolet (UV) light absorber such that the light fusing agent including the UV light absorber is a UV light fusing agent.
However, Zhao teaches that the light absorbed by the light absorber can be UV instead of IR, near-IR or visible (radiation source 108 to emit radiation R [0025]) such that the light absorber is a UV light absorber, and the light fusing agent including the UV light absorber is a UV light fusing agent, for the purpose of providing the desired conversion of UV light to thermal energy for fusing ([0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided a UV light absorber in place of the IR, near-IR or visible light absorber, such that the light fusing agent including the UV light absorber is a UV light fusing agent, in the multi-fluid kit for 3D printing of Zhao, in order to obtain the desired conversion of UV light to thermal energy for fusing, as taught by Zhao.
In addition, Zhao teaches that the UV light absorber can consist of a yellow dye (colored fusing agent [0044]), but fails to teach that the yellow dye is a fluorescent yellow dye.
However, Yan teaches that a fluorescent yellow dye was already a well-known UV light absorber at the time (4th para of page 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided a fluorescent yellow dye as the yellow dye consisting the UV light absorber, of the UV light fusing agent of the multi-fluid kit for 3D printing, of Zhao, in order to obtain the desired conversion of UV light to thermal energy for fusing, as taught by Yan in light of Zhao.
Regarding claim 12, Zhao teaches that the detailing agent includes a second surfactant, a second co-solvent, and a balance of water ([0018]); where the detailing agent is devoid of a colorant since there is no mention of one among its components ([0054-0059]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Yan, as applied to claims 11-12 above, and further in view of Duez (US 2004/0065226).
Zhao, as modified by Yan, teaches the multi-fluid kit for 3D printing, comprising: the UV light fusing agent including the UV light absorber consisting of a fluorescent yellow dye; and a liquid vehicle including a surfactant, a co-solvent, and a balance of water; and a detailing agent, as described above.
In addition, modified Zhao teaches an embodiment in which the UV light fusing agent is devoid of a pigment or other dye, meaning that aside from the fluorescent yellow dye that is a UV light absorber (colored fusing agent whose color is … yellow [0044]), there is no other pigment or dye that absorbs other light (single fusing agent [0052]) as defined by the specification ([0022]). Modified Zhao fails to teach that the fluorescent yellow dye is Solvent Green 7.
However, Duez teaches that a fluorescent yellow dye that is commercially available as Solvent Green 7 ([0010]) is used for the purpose of providing the desired yellow fluorescence at a basic pH ([0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have used Solvent Green 7 as the fluorescent yellow dye which is the UV light absorber in the UV light fusing agent of Zhao, as modified by Yan, in order to obtain the desired yellow fluorescence at a basic pH, as taught by Duez.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Yan, as applied to claims 11-12 above, and further in view of Lee (Clarivate Analytics English translation of KR-20170099521-A).
Zhao, as modified by Yan, teaches the multi-fluid kit for 3D printing, comprising: the UV light fusing agent including the UV light absorber consisting of a fluorescent yellow dye; and a liquid vehicle including a surfactant, a co-solvent, and a balance of water; and a detailing agent, as described above.
Modified Zhao fails to teach that the fluorescent yellow dye is Solvent Green 7, that a pH of the UV light fusing agent is within a range of from about 4 to about 7, and that a wavelength of maximum absorption of the UV light fusing agent is within a range of about 403 nm to about 404 nm.
However, Lee teaches that when the pH of the fluorescent yellow dye that is Solvent Green 7, is within a range of 7 or higher (pH 7 or higher, 2nd para of page 4) which overlaps the claimed range of from about 4 to about 7 at the upper limit, the wavelength of maximum absorption is within the visible wavelength range (shows a fluorescent yellow, 2nd para of page 4), and when the pH is within a range of below 5 (below pH 5, 2nd para of page 4) which overlaps the claimed range of from about 4 to about 7 at the lower limit, the wavelength of maximum absorption is shifted to a wavelength that is outside the visible wavelength range (colorless, 2nd para of page 4, pH of the ink acidic and plays a role in keeping the fluorescent dye colorless without becoming fluorescent yellow, last para of page 3), which includes the claimed range of from about 403 nm to about 404 nm, thus establishing the pH of the fluorescent yellow dye as the UV light absorber, as a result-effective variable which is adjusted for the purpose of providing the desired wavelength of maximum absorption.
Therefore, in the absence of a clear showing to the contrary, it would have been routine experimentation by, and hence obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have used Solvent Green 7 as the fluorescent yellow dye which is the UV light absorber, of the UV light fusing agent of Zhao, as modified by Yan, and to have adjusted the pH of the UV light fusing agent, that includes Solvent Green 7 as the fluorescent yellow dye which is the UV light absorber, to one that is within a range of from about 4 to about 7, in order to obtain the desired wavelength of maximum absorption, as taught by Lee, where the pH range of from about 4 to about 7, are conditions for the Solvent Green 7, and hence the UV light fusing agent including the Solvent Green 7, to have a corresponding wavelength of maximum absorption that is within a range of from about 403 nm to about 404 nm, as disclosed in Applicant’s specification (Table 1 [0107]).
Accordingly, the UV light fusing agent of Zhao, as modified by Yan and Lee, that includes Solvent Green 7 as the fluorescent yellow dye which is the UV light absorber, has a pH that is within a range of from about 4 to about 7, which are conditions for a corresponding wavelength of maximum absorption that is within a range of from about 403 nm to about 404 nm, as disclosed in Applicant’s specification (Table 1 [0107]), for the purpose of providing the desired maximum absorption wavelength, as described above.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Yan, as applied to claims 11-12 above, and further in view of Duez (US 2004/0065226).
Zhao, as modified by Yan, teaches the multi-fluid kit for 3D printing, comprising: the UV light fusing agent including the UV light absorber consisting of a fluorescent yellow dye; and a liquid vehicle including a surfactant, a co-solvent and a balance of water; and a detailing agent, as described above.
Modified Zhao fails to teach that the fluorescent yellow dye is Solvent Green 7, that the UV light fusing agent further comprises a base and has a pH that is within the claimed range of from about 8 to about 9, and that a wavelength of maximum absorption of the UV light fusing agent is about 455 nm.
However, Duez teaches that a fluorescent yellow dye that is commercially available as Solvent Green 7 ([0010]) is used for the purpose of providing the desired yellow fluorescence at a basic pH ([0010]). Duez teaches that the agent further comprises a base (un-neutralized portion of triethanolamine [0022]) and has a pH that is within the claimed range of from about 8 to about 9 (range 8 to 9 [0026]) which are conditions for the Solvent Green 7 to exhibit maximum absorption at a wavelength of about 455 nm, as disclosed in Applicant’s specification (Table 1 [0107]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have used Solvent Green 7 as the fluorescent yellow dye which is the UV light absorber in the UV light fusing agent of Zhao, as modified by Yan, in order to obtain the desired yellow fluorescence at a basic pH which is within a range of from about 8 to about 9, as taught by Duez, which are conditions for the Solvent Green 7, and hence the UV light fusing agent including the Solvent Green 7, to exhibit maximum absorption at a wavelength of about 455 nm, as disclosed in Applicant’s specification (Table 1 [0107]).
Accordingly, the UV light fusing agent of Zhao, as modified by Yan and Duez, that includes Solvent Green 7 as the fluorescent yellow dye which is the UV light absorber, has a pH that is within a range of from about 8 to about 9, which are conditions for a corresponding wavelength of maximum absorption of about 455 nm, as disclosed in Applicant’s specification (Table 1 [0107]), for the purpose of providing the desired maximum absorption wavelength, as described above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Sow-Fun Hon whose telephone number is (571)272-1492. The examiner is on a flexible schedule but can usually be reached during a regular workweek between the hours of 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached at (571)272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). Should you have any questions on the Patent Center system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Sophie Hon/
Sow-Fun Hon
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782