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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-5, 7-10, and 16-18 in the reply filed on 1/20/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all other groups have been cancelled. This is not found persuasive because the presented arguments fail to specifically outline how the positions taken within the restriction requirement of 11/20/2025 are in error.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7-10, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herschke (WO 2019/182576 A1) in view of Layman (US 2018/0171097 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 5, Herschke teaches three-dimensional printings derived from printing compositions comprising polymer powder, fusing agent mixture, and detailing agent (¶ 12-14). The printing composition comprises at least 50 wt% of polyolefin (¶ 12) and the fusing agent is present at 1-30 wt% of the printing composition, whereby the fusing agent comprises 40 wt% or less of active compound, 1-50 wt% organic co-solvent, and 0.01-10 wt% surfactant (¶ 166, 184, 191-193, 196-197). Therefore, the resulting printed objects would possess overlapping ranges with respect to polyolefin polymer and particular fusing compound / residual components. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Herschke suggests the claimed ranges. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Herschke. See MPEP 2123.
Herschke differs from the subject matter claimed in that a particular method of recovering/recycling polyolefin from the printed objects is not described. Layman teaches methods of recycling plastic articles such as polyolefin articles comprising obtaining reclaimed product, reducing the size of the product, dissolving the product in solvent to form suspension, collecting undissolved particulates (i.e. separating solids), and then separating polymer from solvent to recover polymer (Abstract; Figure 2; ¶ 20, 57). Layman teaches the process is relatively simple and affords virgin-like quality materials (¶ 51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recycle scrap materials of Herschke with the protocols of Layman because such processes are relatively simple and afford virgin-like materials as taught by Layman.
Herschke teaches the fusing agent can be various inorganic pigment materials such as carbon black (¶ 168-183). Layman teaches the step of separating solids from suspension can remove various insoluble particulate matter inclusive of carbon black (¶ 129-130). Therefore, there is an expectation that particulate fusing agent would be separated over the course of applying Layman’s method. Layman teaches separation of final polymer from solvent can entail solvent conversion from liquid to vapor phase (¶ 145), which is evaporation.
Regarding Claim 4, Herschke teaches embodiments where the fusing agent has an average particle diameter from greater than 0 to less than 220 nm (¶ 182), which overlaps the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Herschke suggests the claimed ranges. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Herschke. See MPEP 2123.
Regarding Claim 7, Layman teaches filtration (¶ 131).
Regarding Claim 10, Layman teaches solvent can be removed under vacuum (¶ 148), after which solvent is recycled as a dissolving solvent (dashed line of Figure 2; ¶ 155). Given Layman teaches collecting/recycling solvent under vacuum, Layman implies the use of a vacuum trap.
Regarding Claims 16 and 17, Layman teaches the process removes particulate additives to the extent that less than 3 wt% of said additives are present in the separated/purified polymer (¶ 153). Given the materials amounts described by Herschke above, the combination of references suggests overlapping ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Layman suggests the claimed ranges. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Layman. See MPEP 2123.
Regarding Claim 18, Layman teaches any undissolved materials are allowed to settle following the dissolution step (Figure 2), which implies the dissolution step takes place with agitation.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herschke (WO 2019/182576 A1) in view of Layman (US 2018/0171097 A1) and Miller-Chou (Prog. Polym. Sci. 2003, 28, 1223-1270).
The discussion regarding Herschke and Layman within ¶ 7-14 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 8, Layman teaches grinding articles to particles having a largest dimension of less than 25 mm, preferably less than about 10 mm (¶ 163). Layman differs from the subject matter claimed in that the particular dimensions claimed are not described. Miller-Chou teaches it was known in the art polymer dissolution is impacted by the surface area of substrate (Page 1230, Left Column). Thus, the surface area of the resulting particles, directly related to the size/shape of the particles, is a known result effective variable subject to routine optimization by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II). 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 discover workable or optimal particle shapes/sizes within the scope of the present claims so as to produce desired dissolution timeframes.
Regarding Claim 9, Layman taches dissolving at elevated temperatures, for example 90-220 degrees C (¶ 89), which overlaps the range claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Layman suggests the claimed ranges. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Layman. See MPEP 2123.
Layman differs from the subject matter claimed in that quantitative numbers in terms of time required for dissolution is not provided. Miller-Chou teaches it was known in the art polymer dissolution is impacted by temperature/timeframes in terms of swelling and ultimately dissolving polymeric substrates (Sections 2 and 2.1). Thus, the time required for a physical process such as dissolution is a known result effective variable subject to routine optimization by one of ordinary skill in the art since the overall solubility and rate of solubilization of substrates within a given solvent can vary. See MPEP 2144.05(II). 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 discover workable/optimal dissolution times within the scope of the present claims so as to produce optimal quantities of recycled polymeric material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN E RIETH whose telephone number is (571)272-6274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM-4PM Mountain Standard Time.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at (571)272-1166. 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.
/STEPHEN E RIETH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759