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
Applicant has submitted amendments on 5/11/2026.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
The term “preferably” in claims 1 and 8-10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “preferably” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the purpose of examination, preferable will be understood as being an optional element.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al (KR PUB. 20120045480, herein Cho) in view of Joon et al (KR. PUB. 10-1482560, herein Joon) in further view of Taylor et al (US PUB. 20210070987, herein Taylor).
Regarding claim 1, Cho teaches A composite powder material, preferably with optimized flow properties for powder processing technologies, comprising a polymer powder, [which comprises polydioxanone] and a water-soluble salt (page 2 "The present invention comprises the steps of (1) mixing the thermoplastic polymer powder and salt in a weight ratio of 1: 1 to 1:20; (2) placing the mixture into a mold and heating”).
The cited prior art do not teach and wherein the water-soluble salt is a flow aid and which comprises polydioxanone.
Joon teaches and wherein the water-soluble salt is a flow aid (page 2 “in the present invention, the water-soluble polymer dispersion is prepared by dispersing the water-soluble polymer powder particles in a salt solution which does not dissolve the powder particles of the polymer flocculant, whereby the water-soluble polymer powder particles are contained at a high concentration, Is dissolved in water to prevent the viscosity from increasing”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Cho with the teachings of Joon since Joon teaches a means for improving “dispersibility and the layer stability of the water-soluble polymer in the dispersion” (page 2).
The cited prior art do not teach which comprises polydioxanone.
Taylor teaches which comprises polydioxanone (0088 “the component which is relatively soluble in the selected solvent will be a polymer, for example, an organic polymer. This soluble component may be a single polymer, e.g., polyethylene glycol or polyvinylalcohol, or it may be a blend of polymers, e.g., a blend containing polyethylene glycol and polyvinylalcohol. In one embodiment, the soluble component is a single polymer. In one embodiment, the soluble component is a blend of two or more polymers. In one embodiment, the soluble component is or includes polyalkylene glycol, e.g., polyethyleney glycol (PEG), blends of PEG and polypropylene glycol (PPG) as found in PLURONICS polymers from Dow Du Pont (Midland, Mich.), or PPG which may be dissolved in an alcohol solvent such as methanol, while the polymer phase, which is the insoluble component, is a biodegradable polymer such as a polymer including polyester and/or polyanhydride segments, e.g., segments produced from glycolide (polyglycolide, PGA), lactide (polylactide, PLA), dioxanone (polydioxanone, PDO), trimethylene carbonate (polytrimethylene carbonate, TMC), caprolactone (polycaprolactone, PCL), hydroxyalkanoates such as hydroxybutyrate (polyhydroxyalkanoate, e.g., PHB), or mixtures thereof such as polylactide-co-glycolide (PLGA).”, 0268 “Filaments suitable for additive manufacturing were prepared from polydioxanone (PDO) and polyethyleneglycol (PEG). The quantities of PDO and PEG present in each of the filament are set forth in Table 1. The selected amounts of PDO and PEG were placed in a jar. The PDO (Poly-Med, Anderson S.C., USA) had a molecular weight such that a dilute solution in hexafluoro-2-propanol (HFIP) had an inherent viscosity of 1.7 dL/g at a concentration of 0.1 mg polymer/mL solvent”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Cho and Joon with the teachings of Taylor since Taylor teaches a means for using “improved, multifunctional materials” (0003).
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art teach The material of claim 1.
Cho teaches wherein the water-soluble salt is embedded into the particle surface of polymeric powder (page 2 "The present invention comprises the steps of (1) mixing the thermoplastic polymer powder and salt in a weight ratio of 1: 1 to 1:20; (2) placing the mixture into a mold and heating”).
Regarding claim 3, the cited prior art teach The material of claim 1.
Cho teaches wherein the water-soluble salt is embedded into the particle surface of the polymeric powder by mixing or milling (page 2 "The present invention comprises the steps of (1) mixing the thermoplastic polymer powder and salt in a weight ratio of 1: 1 to 1:20; (2) placing the mixture into a mold and heating”).
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art teach The material of claim 1.
Cho teaches wherein the polymer powder comprises a processed polymer powder or a non-processed polymer powder (page 2 “In the production method of the present invention, the thermoplastic polymer powder is a group consisting of polyamino acid, polyanhydride, polycaprolactone, polyorthoester, polylactic acid, polyglycolic acid, polylactic-glycolic acid copolymer and derivatives thereof It is preferable that it is at least 1 sort (s) selected from”).
Regarding claim 6, the cited prior art teach The material of claim 1.
Cho teaches wherein the polymer, which forms the polymer powder, is produced from p-dioxanone monomer, I- lactide monomer, d-lactide monomer, glycolide monomer, caprolactone monomer, or a combination thereof (page 2 “In the production method of the present invention, the thermoplastic polymer powder is a group consisting of polyamino acid, polyanhydride, polycaprolactone, polyorthoester, polylactic acid, polyglycolic acid, polylactic-glycolic acid copolymer and derivatives thereof It is preferable that it is at least 1 sort (s) selected from”).
Regarding claim 7, the cited prior art teach The material of claim 1.
Cho teaches wherein the water-soluble salt is magnesium sulfate, sodium sulfate, potassium chloride, sodium chloride, sodium sulfate, aluminum potassium sulfate, magnesium chloride, or magnesium chloride hexahydrate or a mixture thereof (page 2 “In the preparation method of the present invention, the salt is at least one selected from the group consisting of crystalline salts such as sodium chloride, potassium chloride, calcium chloride, magnesium chloride, crystalline hydroxides such as sodium hydroxide and calcium hydroxide, and water-soluble polysaccharides such as sugar and starch”).
Claim(s) 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al (KR PUB. 20120045480, herein Cho) in view of Joon et al (KR. PUB. 10-1482560, herein Joon) in further view of Taylor et al (US PUB. 20210070987, herein Taylor) in further view of Goetz et al (US PUB. 20220169785, herein Goetz).
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art teach The material of claim 1.
Cho teaches wherein the polymer powder is a blended mixture of virgin polymer powder and processed polymer powder (page 2 “In the production method of the present invention, the thermoplastic polymer powder is a group consisting of polyamino acid, polyanhydride, polycaprolactone, polyorthoester, polylactic acid, polyglycolic acid, polylactic-glycolic acid copolymer and derivatives thereof It is preferable that it is at least 1 sort (s) selected from”).
The cited prior art do not teach and wherein the processed polymer powder was annealed during laser sintering processing.
Goetz teaches and wherein the processed polymer powder was annealed during laser sintering processing (0117 “Parts were printed using a laser sintering process using Polymer 1 pellets that were manufactured using one-hour acetone exposure followed by drying (thermal annealing) at 140° C. for 8 hours”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Cho, Joon and Taylor with the teachings of Goetz since Goetz teaches a means for a useful build material for additive manufacturing applications (abstract).
Regarding claim 10, the cited prior art teach A method of producing a 3D article comprising the composite powder material of claim 1.
Cho does not teach wherein the method comprises: (a) applying and irradiating a base anchoring layer of polymer of similar base geometry to the 3D article being produced; (b) applying a layer of the composite powder material to a printing area; (c) sintering the cross-sectional area of the 3D article being produced; (d) applying multiple layers of the composite powder material to the printing area on top of the base anchoring layer until a full 3D article has been printed; (e) annealing the composite powder material one second to 8 hours at a temperature of from preferably 8*C to 60*C, more preferably 9*C to 50*C, and most preferably 10*C to 35*C below initial polymer melting temperature; and (f) cooling the composite powder material at a controlled cooling rate of preferably 0.1*C/min to 35*C/min, more preferably 1*C/min to 20*C/min, and most preferably 2*C/min to 5*C/min.
Goetz teaches wherein the method comprises:
(a) applying and irradiating a base anchoring layer of polymer of similar base geometry to the 3D article being produced (0003 “laser sintering involves applying a layer of powdered or pulverulent polymer material to a target or build surface; heating a portion of the material; irradiating selected or desired part locations/shape with laser energy to sinter those portions and produce a part “slice”; and repeating these steps multiple times (the repetition often referred to as the “build”) to create”);
(b) applying a layer of the composite powder material to a printing area (0004 “temperature-related and/or temperature-dependent characteristics and parameters of the polymer powder such as glass transition temperature, melt temperature, crystallinity and rate of crystallization (and of recrystallization after melting) typically require tight control to effectively utilize the polymer powder for laser sintering”);
(c) sintering the cross-sectional area of the 3D article being produced (0093 “directing electromagnetic wave energy at selected locations of the layer corresponding to a cross-section of a part to be formed in said layer to sinter the build composition at the selected locations”);
(d) applying multiple layers of the composite powder material to the printing area on top of the base anchoring layer until a full 3D article has been printed (0003 “laser sintering involves applying a layer of powdered or pulverulent polymer material to a target or build surface; heating a portion of the material; irradiating selected or desired part locations/shape with laser energy to sinter those portions and produce a part “slice”; and repeating these steps multiple times (the repetition often referred to as the “build”) to create”);
(e) annealing the composite powder material one second to 8 hours at a temperature of from preferably 8*C to 60*C, more preferably 9*C to 50*C, and most preferably 10*C to 35*C below initial polymer melting temperature (0117 “Parts were printed using a laser sintering process using Polymer 1 pellets that were manufactured using one-hour acetone exposure followed by drying (thermal annealing) at 140° C. for 8 hours”).;
and (f) cooling the composite powder material at a controlled cooling rate of preferably 0.1*C/min to 35*C/min, more preferably 1*C/min to 20*C/min, and most preferably 2*C/min to 5*C/min (0092 “utilized in an additive manufacturing method such as, for example, a laser sintering process, an important advantage of the build materials of the present invention is that they remain amorphous from the period immediately after being melted/sintered by the laser until they eventually vitrify as they are cooled below the semi-crystalline polymer's glass transition temperature well after the build process is complete”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Cho, Joon and Taylor with the teachings of Goetz since Goetz teaches a means for a useful build material for additive manufacturing applications (abstract).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al (KR PUB. 20120045480, herein Cho) in view of Joon et al (KR. PUB. 10-1482560, herein Joon) Taylor et al (US PUB. 20210070987, herein Taylor) in further view of Jung et al (KR PUB. 10-0537404, herein Jung).
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior art teach The material of claim 1.
The cited prior art do not teach wherein the water-soluble salt comprises not more than about 50wt%, preferably between 0.01wt% to 30 wt%, more preferably between 0.01wt% to 20wt% of the composite powder material.
Jung teaches wherein the water-soluble salt comprises not more than about 50wt%, preferably between 0.01wt% to 30 wt%, more preferably between 0.01wt% to 20wt% of the composite powder material (page 8 “Polylactide powder having a size of 30 to 40 μm and sodium chloride crystals having a size of 300 to 500 μm were adjusted to a 95 wt% sodium chloride / polylactide weight ratio, and then uniformly mixed and placed in a mold. Polylactide / sodium chloride specimens were prepared by pressing a 1.3 cm diameter mold to 5,000 pounds using a hydraulic press. The prepared specimens were bonded in an oven at 175 ° C. for 3 minutes. The specimen to which the polylactide powder was bonded was completely removed with sodium chloride present in the specimen using distilled water, and the distilled water was exchanged about five times during one day. The obtained specimen was lyophilized to prepare a porous support. The thickness of the prepared porous support can be adjusted according to the amount of polylactide / sodium chloride added, and it was possible to prepare a porous support having a thickness of 0.5 to 10 mm.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Cho, Joon and Taylor with the teachings of Jung since Jung teaches a means for “producing a porous polymer support having excellent stability” (abstract).
Regarding claim 9, the cited prior art teach The material of claim 1.
The cited prior art do not teach wherein the polymer powder comprises not more than about 99wt%, preferably between 70wt% to 95wt% or 80wt% to 99wt% of the composite powder material.
Jung teaches wherein the polymer powder comprises not more than about 99wt%, preferably between 70wt% to 95wt% or 80wt% to 99wt% of the composite powder material (page 8 “Polylactide powder having a size of 30 to 40 μm and sodium chloride crystals having a size of 300 to 500 μm were adjusted to a 95 wt% sodium chloride / polylactide weight ratio, and then uniformly mixed and placed in a mold. Polylactide / sodium chloride specimens were prepared by pressing a 1.3 cm diameter mold to 5,000 pounds using a hydraulic press. The prepared specimens were bonded in an oven at 175 ° C. for 3 minutes. The specimen to which the polylactide powder was bonded was completely removed with sodium chloride present in the specimen using distilled water, and the distilled water was exchanged about five times during one day. The obtained specimen was lyophilized to prepare a porous support. The thickness of the prepared porous support can be adjusted according to the amount of polylactide / sodium chloride added, and it was possible to prepare a porous support having a thickness of 0.5 to 10 mm.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Cho and Joon with the teachings of Jung since Jung teaches a means for “producing a porous polymer support having excellent stability” (abstract).
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al (KR PUB. 20120045480, herein Cho) in view of Joon et al (KR. PUB. 10-1482560, herein Joon) in further view of Taylor et al (US PUB. 20210070987, herein Taylor) in further view of Goetz et al (US PUB. 20220169785, herein Goetz) in further view of Walsh et al (US PUB. 20190381731, herein Walsh).
Regarding claim 11, the cited prior art teach The method of claim 10.
The cited prior art do not teach wherein the irradiated base anchoring layer is further supported by a base support below; or, wherein a base support is added to any structure other than the base geometry.
Walsh teaches wherein the irradiated base anchoring layer is further supported by a base support below; or, wherein a base support is added to any structure other than the base geometry (0048 “reference to FIGS. 3B and 3C, build module 360 is moved upwardly in the build chamber, e.g., build chamber 120, such that the second build plate and the plurality of supports 331A, 331B are accessible to be removed, and the second build plate and the plurality of supports are then removed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Cho, Joon, Taylor and Goetz with the teachings of Walsh since Walsh teaches a means for improving the process for handling powder during manufacturing.
Regarding claim 13, the cited prior art teach The method of claim 11.
Walsh teaches wherein the base support can be removed from the 3D article being produced; and wherein the base geometry can be separated into its initial powder form through sieving (0048 “reference to FIGS. 3B and 3C, build module 360 is moved upwardly in the build chamber, e.g., build chamber 120, such that the second build plate and the plurality of supports 331A, 331B are accessible to be removed, and the second build plate and the plurality of supports are then removed”).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al (KR PUB. 20120045480, herein Cho) in view of Joon et al (KR. PUB. 10-1482560, herein Joon) Taylor et al (US PUB. 20210070987, herein Taylor) in further view of Goetz et al (US PUB. 20220169785, herein Goetz) in further view of Walsh et al (US PUB. 20190381731, herein Walsh) in further view of Murao (US PUB. 20180169757).
Regarding claim 12, the cited prior art teach The method of claim 11.
The cited prior art do not teach wherein the base support is irradiated with a different energy density from the 3D article being produced by laser sintering.
Murao teaches wherein the base support is irradiated with a different energy density from the 3D article being produced by laser sintering (claim 2 “wherein an energy density of the light radiated in the step of forming the support portion is smaller than an energy density of the light radiated in the step of forming the three-dimensionally shaped object”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Cho, the teachings of Joon, Taylor, the teachings of Goetz and the teachings of Walsh with the teachings of Murao since Murao teaches a means for preventing damage to the 3D part when removing supports (0006).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al (KR PUB. 20120045480, herein Cho) in view of Joon et al (KR. PUB. 10-1482560, herein Joon) Taylor et al (US PUB. 20210070987, herein Taylor) in further view of Murao (US PUB. 20180169757).
Regarding claim 14, the cited prior art teach The method of claim 1.
The cited prior art do not teach wherein engineering stresses can be embedded into the 3D article being produced by altering the energy density of the laser sintering process between 0.01 J/mm3 to 5.0 J/mm3.
Murao teaches wherein engineering stresses can be embedded into the 3D article being produced by altering an energy density of the laser sintering process between 0.01 J/mm3 to 5.0 J/mm3 (table 1, table 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Cho, the teachings of Joon and Taylor with the teachings of Murao since Murao teaches a means for preventing damage to the 3D part when removing supports (0006).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 5/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 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 Cho et al (KR PUB. 20120045480, herein Cho) in view of Joon et al (KR. PUB. 10-1482560, herein Joon) in further view of Taylor et al (US PUB. 20210070987, herein Taylor).
Applicant argues on page 5 that the cited prior art does not teach the polydioxanone polymers.
Examiner agrees. However, Taylor teaches dioxanone (polydioxanone, PDO) (0088 0268). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings since Taylor teaches improved, multifunctional materials (0003).
Conclusion
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 TAMEEM SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1627. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/TAMEEM D SIDDIQUEE/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights