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
1. Applicant’s amendment and accompanying remarks filed 6/24/26 have been fully considered and entered. Claims 16 and 25 have been amended. Claim 31 has been added as requested. Applicants’ amendments are found sufficient to overcome the cited combination of prior art. Specifically, the combination of Hirano et al. et al. (US 2021/0040318) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2013/0203910) does not teach the claimed anti-nucleating agent. As such, these rejections are hereby withdrawn. However, upon further consideration the following new ground of rejection is set forth below.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicants amend claim 16 to recite that part (D) includes an anti-nucleating additive. Applicants argue that the primary reference of Hirano et al., teach away from a composition that comprises an anti-nucleating. Applicants point to the passages of Hirano et al., that teach adding various additives such as the previously disclosed inorganic particles and nucleating agents. Applicants submit that such a disclosure constitutes a teaching away from using anti-nucleating agents. This is not found persuasive. In response the Examiner is of the position that a reference that merely describes alternatives rather expressly teaching that such a combination would fail or render inferior results does not constitute a teaching away from. In this instance, the primary reference of Hirano et al., just simply does not address a combination wherein the additive is an anti-nucleating agent rather actively discouraging from its use. In In re Fulton, 359 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the Federal Circuit held that a prior art reference does not “teach away” from a claimed combination merely because it prefers an alternative or is silent on the claimed combination — teaching away requires a clear discouragement or warning against the claimed approach.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 16, 18-22, 24-25 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano et al. (US 2021/0040318) in view of Gabriel et al., US 11,613,074 and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2013/0203910).
With regard to claims 16 and 18-22, Hirano et al. teaches a filament for 3D printing (“A fused deposition modeling type 3D printer filament’, Pa [0025]), comprising (A) at least one semicrystalline polyamide which is selected from the group consisting of PA 4, PA 6, PA7, PA 8, PA9, PA 11, PA 12, PA 46, PA 66, PA 69, PA 6.10, PA 6.12, PA 6.13, PA 6/6.36, PA6T/6, PA 12.12, PA 13.13, PA 6T, PA MXD6, PA 6/66, PA 6/12 and co-polyamides thereof (Pa [0033)); (B) at least one amorphous polyamide which is selected from the group consisting of PA 6I/6T, PA 61 and PA 6/3T (Pa [0041]); and (C) at least one flame retardant of formula (Pa [0066)). Hirano et al. teach using polyamide resin (A) in amount of 65 or 80 parts by weight (table 1, examples 1 and 2). Polyamide resin (B) in amount of 20 or 35 parts by weight (table 1, examples 1 and 2).
With further regard to the claimed additive, part (D) of claim 16 and the claimed amounts/types set forth in claims 25 and 31, Hirano et al. teach that the polyamide composition may further comprise various additives, such as dyes, stabilizers, organic and/or inorganic particles (paragraphs 0066-0072).
Hirano et al., is silent as to the specific type and amount anti-nucleating agent (inorganic particles).
The patent issued to Gabriel et al., teach forming shaped articles from a sinter powder comprising similar semi-crystalline polyamide and amorphous polyamide, a flame retardant and at least .01-10 wt. % of an anti-nucleating additive such as lithium chloride (see claims 1,5, 6 and 7, column 3, 65-67 and column 4, 5-20). Therefore, motivated by the desire to promote crystallization, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to formulate the composition of Hirano et al. et al., the anti-nucleating agent of Gabriel et al.
Also, in the same field of endeavor, Zhang teaches that a polyamide resin composition that comprises at least one flame retardant comprising at least one selected from phosphinates of the formula (I), disohosphinates of the formula (II), and combinations or polymers thereof (Pa [0013]). M is selected from calcium ions, magnesium ions, aluminum ions, zinc ions, and combinations (Pa [0014]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hirano et al. with the teachings of Zhang such that the one would provide Zhang's flame retardant as a flame retardant in Hirano et al.’s composition for the purpose of forming flame resistant polyamide resin composition.
Regarding the amount and type of the flame retardant, part (C) of claim 16, Zhang et al., teach using from 5-45 wt. % (paragraph 0031). Based on the combination of teachings it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to formulate the polyamide resin composition taught by the combination of modified Hirano et al., in view of Zhang et al., with the amounts of each polyamide resin (A and B) and the amount and type of flame retardant (C) and (D) to provide a flame-resistant polyamide resin composition and filament.
With specific regard to the metal ion (M) of claim 16, according to Applicant’s specification the claimed metal ion (M) can be selected from metal ions of 2nd and 3rd main or auxiliary groups of the periodic table (Applicant’s specification – Pa. 0009). Applicants do not specifically teach or exemplify the metal ions of claim 16 in the specification nor is there any critical evidentiary data that shows unexpected results with the claimed metal ions. As such, absent unexpected evidence and/or the criticality of the specifically claimed lithium ion, a sodium ion, a potassium ion, a rubidium ion, a cesium ion, a francium ion, a beryllium ion, a strontium ion, a barium ion, a radium ion, an iron ion, or a boron ion the Examiner is of the position that the other metal ions of Zhang et al., also from the 2nd and 3rd main or auxiliary groups of the periodic table would have the same properties as the claimed metal ions and would yield a predictable variation whose application is well within the skill of the art.
The combination of cited prior art does not teach the D10, D50 or D90 particle size values. The Examiner is of the position that absent unexpected results the Examiner is of the position that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the particle size of the filler/flame retardant can be adjusted and varied depending on desired filament end use and flame retardance. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA)
Regarding claim 24, Hirano et al., teach a filament with a diameter ranging from 1.0-5.0mm (paragraph 0088).
Regarding claim 25, Zhang teaches adding various additives in amounts ranging from 1-20 wt. % (paragraph 0032 and 0036).
5. Claim(s) 16, 18-22, 24-25 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano et al. (US 2021/0040318) in view of in view of Gabriel et al., US 11,613,074 and
Schneider, US 20070072970 A1.
With regard to claims 16 and 18-22, Hirano et al. teaches a filament for 3D printing (“A fused deposition modeling type 3D printer filament’, Pa [0025]), comprising (A) at least one semicrystalline polyamide which is selected from the group consisting of PA 4, PA 6, PA7, PA 8, PA9, PA 11, PA 12, PA 46, PA 66, PA 69, PA 6.10, PA 6.12, PA 6.13, PA 6/6.36, PA6T/6, PA 12.12, PA 13.13, PA 6T, PA MXD6, PA 6/66, PA 6/12 and co-polyamides thereof (Pa [0033)); (B) at least one amorphous polyamide which is selected from the group consisting of PA 6I/6T, PA 61 and PA 6/3T (Pa [0041]); and (C) at least one flame retardant of formula (Pa [0066)). Hirano et al. teach using polyamide resin (A) in amount of 65 or 80 parts by weight (table 1, examples 1 and 2). Polyamide resin (B) in amount of 20 or 35 parts by weight (table 1, examples 1 and 2).
With further regard to the claimed additive, part (D) of claim 16 and the claimed amounts/types set forth in claims 25 and 31, Hirano et al. teach that the polyamide composition may further comprise various additives, such as dyes, stabilizers, organic and/or inorganic particles (paragraphs 0066-0072).
Hirano et al., is silent as to the specific type and amount anti-nucleating agent (inorganic particles).
The patent issued to Gabriel et al., teach forming shaped articles from a sinter powder comprising similar semi-crystalline polyamide and amorphous polyamide, a flame retardant and at least .01-10 wt. % of an anti-nucleating additive such as lithium chloride (see claims 1,5, 6 and 7, column 3, 65-67 and column 4, 5-20). Therefore, motivated by the desire to promote crystallization, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to formulate the composition of Hirano et al. et al., the anti-nucleating agent of Gabriel et al.
Hirano et al. is silent to the claimed flame retardant.
Also, in the same field of endeavor, Schneider teaches that a polyamide resin composition that comprises at least one flame retardant comprising at least one selected from phosphinates of the formula (I), disohosphinates of the formula (II), and combinations or polymers thereof (Pa [0015-0024]). M is selected from calcium ions, magnesium ions, aluminum ions, zinc ions, and combinations M) can be selected from metal ions of 2nd and 3rd main or auxiliary groups of the periodic table. (Pa [0019]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hirano et al. with the teachings of Schneider such that the one would provide Schneider's flame retardant as a flame retardant in Hirano et al.’s composition for the purpose of forming flame resistant polyamide resin composition. Regarding the amount and type of the flame retardant, part (C) and (D) of claim 16, Schneider teach using from 1-30 wt. % (paragraph 0038). Based on the combination of teachings it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to formulate the polyamide resin composition taught by the combination of modified Hirano et al. in view of Schneider with the amounts of each polyamide resin (A and B) and the amount and type of flame retardant (C) and (D) to provide a flame-resistant polyamide resin composition and filament.
With specific regard to the metal ion (M) of claim 16, according to Applicant’s specification the claimed metal ion (M) can be selected from metal ions of 2nd and 3rd main or auxiliary groups of the periodic table (Applicant’s specification – Pa 0009). Applicants do not specifically teach or exemplify the metal ions of claim 16 in the specification nor is there any critical evidentiary data that shows unexpected results with the claimed metal ions. As such, absent unexpected evidence and/or the criticality of the specifically claimed lithium ion, a sodium ion, a potassium ion, a rubidium ion, a cesium ion, a francium ion, a beryllium ion, a strontium ion, a barium ion, a radium ion, an iron ion, or a boron ion the Examiner is of the position that the other metal ions of Schneider also from the 2nd and 3rd main or auxiliary groups of the periodic table would have the same properties as the claimed metal ions and would yield a predictable variation whose application is well within the skill of the art.
The combination of cited prior art does not teach the D10, D50 or D90 particle size values. The Examiner is of the position that absent unexpected results the Examiner is of the position that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the particle size of the filler/flame retardant can be adjusted and varied depending on desired filament end use and flame retardance. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA)
Regarding claim 24, Hirano et al. teach a filament with a diameter ranging from 1.0-5.0mm (paragraph 0088).
Regarding claim 25, Schneider teach adding various additives in amount ranging from 5-60 wt. % (paragraph 0038).
Conclusion
6. 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 LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights