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 § 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 of this title, 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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masatomo (EP 3 505 323) in view of Okuda (JP 2011-20412).
With respect to claims 1, 6, 9-11, 13, and 14, Masatomo discloses a method of producing a molded article by removing a 3D printer support material with a composition that prevents whitening of the molded article (abstract), wherein the support material removal composition comprises a hydroxyl compound such as a polyether hydroxyl compound (paragraph 0021). Example 40 is a support material removal composition comprising the hydroxyl compound, sodium dodecyl sulfate as anionic surfactant having hydrocarbon group with 12 carbon atoms, a pH adjuster such as sodium hydroxide, and water (paragraph 0120; Table 5).
Masatomo fails to disclose the addition of a tetrahydrocarbyl ammonium.
Okuda discloses a three-dimensional molding method where the support material is removed by an electrolytic solution comprising tetramethylammonium hydroxide (paragraph 0010) which are used to adjust pH value (paragraph 0016). Other pH adjusters include sodium hydroxide (which is exemplified by Masatomo).
Given that both Masatomo and Okuda are drawn to methods of removing a support material in a 3D printed molded articled with a support material removal composition comprising pH adjusters and further given that Okuda discloses a suitable adjuster including tetramethylammonium hydroxide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize tetramethylammonium hydroxide in the method taught by Masatomo.
With respect to claims 2 and 4, Masatomo does not explicitly disclose the amount of compound (A) (i.e., pH adjuster). However, Masatomo teaches that the amount of pH adjuster is based on the desired pH (paragraph 0056). Therefore, the relative amount of pH adjuster (such as tetramethylammonium hydroxide taught by Okuda) is a result effective variable. Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize appropriate amounts of compound A, including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired end results.
With respect to claim 3, Example 40 comprises 0.65 wt % sodium dodecyl sulfate (Table 5), which is about 0.65 g/100 mL.
With respect to claim 5, Masatomo teaches that the pH is preferably from 3-10 (paragraph 0055), which overlaps with claimed range 10 or more.
With respect to claim 8, Masatomo teaches that the thermoplastic resin used as the model material can be polycarbonate (paragraph 0066).
With respect to claim 12, Masatomo discloses that the pH can exceed 11 (paragraph 0056).
Masatomo does not explicitly disclose the amount of compound (A) (i.e., pH adjuster). However, Masatomo teaches that the amount of pH adjuster is based on the desired pH (paragraph 0056). Therefore, the relative amount of pH adjuster (such as tetramethylammonium hydroxide taught by Okuda) is a result effective variable. Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize appropriate amounts of compound A, including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired end results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICKEY NERANGIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2701. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST, Monday - Friday.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571)272-1130. 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.
/Vickey Nerangis/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
vn