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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/17/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Applicant’s amendment and accompanying remarks filed 3/17/26 have been fully considered and entered. Claim 16 has been amended. Claims 17 and 23 are canceled. Applicant’s amendments are not found sufficient to overcome the cited combination of prior art and Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive for reasons set forth herein below. In addition, Applicant’s amendments further necessitated the following new ground of rejection set forth herein below.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s amend claim 16 to incorporate limitations from now canceled claims 17 and 23 and further limits the metal ion (M) of claim 16 to represent a 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. Applicants argue that the cited references alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest the claimed filament as presently set forth in amended claim 16. This argument is not found persuasive. The Examiner maintains that sufficient motivation exists to combine the cited references of Hirano and Zhang. The primary reference of Hirano 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)). With further regard to the claimed additive, part (D) of claim 16, Hirano teach that the polyamide composition may further comprise various additives, organic and/or inorganic particles (paragraphs 0066-0072). The Examiner is of the position that since Hirano clearly teach the option of adding a flame retardant to the polyamide resin, sufficient motivation exists to look to the prior art to identify suitable flame retardants that would be compatible with polyamide resin compositions.
Hirano is silent to the claimed type and amount flame retardant.
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 with the teachings of Zhang and provide Zhang's flame retardant as a flame retardant in Hirano’s composition for the purpose of forming flame resistant polyamide resin composition.
The Examiner maintains the position that the combination of Hirano and Zhang clearly renders obvious the structural and chemical limitations of the claimed filament of amended claim 16 for reasons set forth below.
With regard to the claimed amounts of each (A), (B) and (C) as set forth in amended claim 16, Hirano 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 regard to the amount of the flame retardant, parts (C) and (D) 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 Hirano 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 regard to the claimed D10, D50 or D90 particle size values of amended claim 16, the cited combination of prior art does not teach the claimed particle sizes; however, the Examiner maintains that absent unexpected results and/or the criticality of the claimed particle sizes 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)
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 claimed metal ions 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. Applicants are invited to prove otherwise.
For these reasons, the Examiner maintains that the combination of Hirano et al. (US 2021/0040318) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2013/0203910) renders the rejected claims obvious.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 16, 18-22 and 24-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano et al. (US 2021/0040318) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2013/0203910).
With regard to claims 16 and 18-22, Hirano 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)). With further regard to the claimed additive, part (D) of claim 16, Hirano teach that the polyamide composition may further comprise various additives, organic and/or inorganic particles (paragraphs 0066-0072). Hirano 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).
Hirano is silent to the claimed flame retardant.
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 with the teachings of Zhang such that the one would provide Zhang's flame retardant as a flame retardant in Hirano’s composition for the purpose of forming flame resistant polyamide resin composition.
With regard to the amount and type of the flame retardant, part (C) and (D) 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 Hirano 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)
With regard to claim 24, Hirano teach a filament with a diameter ranging from 1.0-5.0mm (paragraph 0088).
With regard to claim 25, Zhang teach adding various additives in amount ranging from 1-20 wt. % (paragraph 0032 and 0036).
6. Claim(s) 16, 18-22 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano et al. (US 2021/0040318) in view of Schneider, US 20070072970 A1.
With regard to claims 16 and 18-22, Hirano 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)). With further regard to the claimed additive, part (D) of claim 16, Hirano teach that the polyamide composition may further comprise various additives, organic and/or inorganic particles (paragraphs 0066-0072). Hirano 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).
Hirano is silent to the claimed flame retardant.
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 with the teachings of Schneider such that the one would provide Schneider's flame retardant as a flame retardant in Hirano’s composition for the purpose of forming flame resistant polyamide resin composition. With regard to 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 Hirano 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)
With regard to claim 24, Hirano teach a filament with a diameter ranging from 1.0-5.0mm (paragraph 0088).
With regard to claim 25, Schneider teach adding various additives in amount ranging from 5-60 wt. % (paragraph 0038).
Conclusion
7. 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