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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-2, 4-9, 11, 13 and 13 in the reply filed on 11/13/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over WO2019203852A1(WO’852, submitted by applicants on 04/19/2023).
Regarding claims 1-2, and 4, WO’852 discloses a finishing solution for removing unwanted resin from an object made by additive manufacturing techniques such as 3D printing having:
(a) 10% by weight D-limonene;
(b) 10% by weight 40% aqueous SXS (an emulsifier);
(c) 5% by weight DPM (a glycol ether);
(d) 5% by weight EB (a glycol ether);
(e) 1% by weight polysorbate 80 (a triol);
(1) 8.6% by weight sodium metasilicate pentahydrate (a caustic compound); and
(g) 60.4% by weight water. See [0015] and [0027].
It has been held that “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
As for the recitation that “the finishing solution is configured to remove uncured resin and ceramic filler from a surface of the 3D printed object “, the Examiner respectfully submits that since the prior art discloses an identical or substantially identical composition, the prior art composition is capable of removing uncured resin and ceramic filler from a surface of the 3D printed object.
Regarding claim 5, WO’852 discloses using sodium hydroxide in increasing the pH of the finishing solution. See [0026].
Regarding claim 6, WO’852 discloses using diethylene glycol butyl ether (DEGBE, 2-(2-butoxyethoxy)ethanol, DEG monobutyl ether). See [0023].
Regarding claims 9, 11 and 13, the Examiner respectfully submits that since the prior art discloses an identical or substantially identical composition, the prior art composition is capable of removing at least 50%, or 90% or 99% by weight of the ceramic filler from the surface of the 3D printed object without any additional subsequent mechanical act configured to remove remaining ceramic filler from the surface of the 3D printed object, and wherein the additional subsequent mechanical act is one or more of sanding, brushing, or bead blasting of the 3D printed object.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over JP2012140571A (submitted by applicants on 10/18/2024).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-5 and 7, JP2012140571A discloses a dishwashing detergent comprising 2.14 wt% coconut fatty acid salt( ヤシ油脂肪酸, an emulsifier), 17 wt% of BDG( a glycol ether), 0.05% NaOH, 3 wt% propylene glycol (プロピレングリコール), and balance of water (水, about 36%), See Example 7.
It has been held that “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
As for the recitation that “the finishing solution is configured to remove uncured resin and ceramic filler from a surface of the 3D printed object “, the Examiner respectfully submits that since the prior art discloses an identical or substantially identical composition, the prior art composition is capable of removing uncured resin and ceramic filler from a surface of the 3D printed object.
PNG
media_image1.png
404
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2012140571A as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US20120159718(US’718).
Regarding claim 8, JP2012140571A discloses a detergent composition set forth above.
But it is silent about using the hexylene glycol (2-methyl-2, 4 pentanediol).
US’718 disclose detergent composition comprising organic solvent. The organic solvents should be selected so as to be compatible with the tableware/cookware as well as with the different parts of an automatic dishwashing machine. See [0105], Solvents that can be used herein glycols, such as propylene glycol, diethylene glycol, hexylene glycol (2-methyl-2, 4 pentanediol), triethylene glycol, composition and dipropylene glycol and other similar materials; and mixtures thereof. See [0106].
Thus, it would bave been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use hexylene glycol (2-methyl-2, 4 pentanediol), motivated by the fact that US’718 disclose detergent composition comprising organic solvent. The organic solvents should be selected so as to be compatible with the tableware/cookware as well as with the different parts of an automatic dishwashing machine. See [0105], Solvents that can be used are glycols, such as propylene glycol, diethylene glycol, hexylene glycol (2-methyl-2, 4 pentanediol), triethylene glycol, composition and dipropylene glycol and other similar materials; and mixtures thereof. See [0106]. Substituting one known solvent (propylene glycol) with another solvent (2-methyl-2, 4 pentanediol) for the same purpose is known in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHUANGYI ABU ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-6453. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am- 5:00 pm.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571)270-3149. 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.
/SHUANGYI ABU ALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731