DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 03/03/2026.
3. Claims 1-17, 19-20 are pending. Claims 1-13, 16-17,19-20 are under examination on the merits. Claims 1, 5, 14, 16 are amended. Claim 18 is cancelled. Claims 19-20 are newly added. Claims 14-15 are withdrawn to a non-elected invention from further consideration.
4. The objections and rejections not addressed below are deemed withdrawn.
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11-13, 16-17,19-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of the fourth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
Subject to the [fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
7. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 USC 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of a previous claim. Applicant is required to cancel the claim, or amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, or rewrite the claim in independent form. Claim 12, as written, depends on claim 1, which recites “wherein the aqueous vehicle further includes water and an alcohol”, however, based on the content of the claim 1, the same limitation is previously presented. Thus claim 12 as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of a previous claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-3, 11-13,16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mappes et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0250430 A1, hereinafter “’430”) in view of Rudisill et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0333914 A1, hereinafter “’914”).
Regarding claims 1,11-12: ‘430 teaches a spectacle lens comprising a polymeric build material composition comprising at least components A, B, and C , and further relates to a process, especially a 3D printing process, for producing this spectacle lens (Page 1, [0002]; Page 1, [0010]-[0017]). ‘430 reaches the printing ink, typically 3D printing ink, usable for construction of component B of the spectacle lens (Page 12, [0139]) comprises the at least one UV initiator (i.e., 315-400 nm ) such as benzophenone, 2-methylbenzophenone, 4-methylbenzophenone, and 4,4′-bis(dimethylamino)benzophenone (i.e., absorption around 365 nm; Page 12, [0138]) in a total proportion from a range from typically 0.01% by weight to 3.7% by weight, more typically from a range from 0.1% by weight to 2.1% by weight and most typically from a range from 0.3% by weight to 1.7% by weight, based in each case on the total weight of the printing ink, typically 3D printing ink (Page 12, [0139], overlapping rang). ‘430 does not expressly teach an ultraviolet (UV) light fusing agent consisting of: an aqueous vehicle consisting of: water, about 0.5 wt% to about 3 wt% of an anionic surfactant, based on a total weight of the UV light fusing agent, and a co-solvent selected from the group consisting of an alcohol, a lactam, a formamide, and an acetamide.
However, ‘914 teaches a kit for three-dimensional (3D) printing (Page 1, [0041]) comprising a polymeric build material composition (Page 2, [0019]), and an ultraviolet (UV) fusing agent (Page 2, [0023]), consisting of an aqueous vehicle (Page 2, [0024]; Page 3, [0030]) which the fusing agent vehicle consisting of water and an alcohol (Page 2, [0030]). ‘914 teaches surfactant(s) may also be used in the fusing agent vehicle. Examples of suitable surfactants include non-ionic surfactants or anionic surfactant may be used in combination with the non-ionic surfactant. One suitable anionic surfactant is an alkyl diphenyloxide disulfonate (e.g., DOWFAX™ 8390 and DOWFAX™ 2A1 from The Dow Chemical Company) (Page 3, [0033]). Whether a single surfactant is used or a combination of surfactants is used, the total amount of surfactant(s) in the fusing agent may range from about 0.1 wt % to about 4 wt % based on the total wt % of the fusing agent (Page 3, [0034]) to improve the jettability of the fusing agent (Page 35, [0091]).
In an analogous art of the kit for three-dimensional (3D) printing, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the functionalized benzophenone by ‘430, so as to include an ultraviolet (UV) light fusing agent consisting of: an aqueous vehicle consisting of: water, about 0.5 wt% to about 3 wt% of an anionic surfactant, based on a total weight of the UV light fusing agent, and a co-solvent selected from the group consisting of an alcohol as taught by ‘914, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing to improve the jettability of the fusing agent as suggested by ‘914 (Page 3, [0033]), and the use of the functionalized benzophenone which exhibit a strong absorption in the narrow band UV light source as taught by ‘430 (Page 12, [0138]).
Regarding claims 2-3: The disclosure of ‘430 in view of ‘914 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘440 teaches the kit for three-dimensional (3D) printing (Page 2, [0010]), wherein the functionalized benzophenone is a benzophenone derivative including at least one hydrophilic functional group, wherein the at least one hydrophilic functional group is selected from the group consisting of an amine group, a hydroxy group, and an alkoxy group such as 4,4′-bis (dimethylamino)benzophenone (Page 12, [0138]).
Regarding claims 13,16: The disclosure of ‘430 in view of ‘914 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference.’914 teaches the kit, further comprising: i) a detailing agent (Page 6, [0066]) including a second aqueous vehicle and excluding an absorber having absorption at wavelengths ranging from about 340 nm to about 405 nm (Page 6, [0067]), ii) a colored ink; or iii) the detailing agent and the colored ink (Page 6, [0068]) with benefit of providing to be used for thermal management of build material particles that are not to be fused (Page 6, [0067]).
Regarding claim 17: The disclosure of ‘430 in view of ‘914 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. 1‘914 teaches a kit for three-dimensional (3D) printing (Page 1, [0041]) comprising a polymeric build material composition (Page 2, [0019]), and an ultraviolet (UV) fusing agent (Page 2, [0023]), consisting of an aqueous vehicle (Page 2, [0024]; Page 3, [0030]) which the fusing agent vehicle consisting of water and an alcohol (Page 2, [0030]). ‘914 teaches surfactant(s) may also be used in the fusing agent vehicle. Examples of suitable surfactants include non-ionic surfactants or anionic surfactant may be used in combination with the non-ionic surfactant. One suitable anionic surfactant is an alkyl diphenyloxide disulfonate (e.g., DOWFAX™ 8390 and DOWFAX™ 2A1 from The Dow Chemical Company) (Page 3, [0033]). Whether a single surfactant is used or a combination of surfactants is used, the total amount of surfactant(s) in the fusing agent may range from about 0.1 wt % to about 4 wt % based on the total wt % of the fusing agent (Page 3, [0034]) to improve the jettability of the fusing agent (Page 35, [0091]).
10. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mappes et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0250430 A1, hereinafter “’430”) in view of Rudisill et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/033 3914 A1, hereinafter “’914”) applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jain et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0369494 A1, hereinafter “’494”).
Regarding claim 4: The disclosure of ‘430 in view of ‘914 is adequately set forth in paragraph 9 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘430 in view of ‘914 does not expressly teach the functionalized benzophenone is selected from the group consisting of 4- aminobenzophenone, 4-dimethylaminobenzophenone, and combinations thereof.
However, ‘494 teaches a kit for three-dimensional (3D) printing (Page 2, [0012]), comprising: an ultraviolet (UV) light fusing agent (Page 2, [0017]; Page 10, [0087]; Page 22, Claim 16), including: an aqueous vehicle (Page 10, [0086]) and a functionalized benzophenone that is at least partially soluble in the aqueous vehicle, the functionalized benzophenone having absorption at wavelengths ranging from about 340 nm to about 405 nm (Page 10, [0084]-[0085]; Page 15, [0145]), wherein the at least one hydrophilic functional group is the amine group; and
the functionalized benzophenone is selected from the group consisting of 4-aminobenzo phenone, 4-dimethylaminobenzophenone, and combinations thereof (Page 10, [0085]).
Thus, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since the substitution of equivalents (i.e., in view of the art recognized functional equivalence of the organic ultraviolet absorber) requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the equivalency. In re Fount USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v Linde Air Products Co., 85 USPQ 328 (USSC).
11. Claims 6-8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mappes et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0250430 A1, hereinafter “’430”) in view of Rudisill et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/ 0333914 A1, hereinafter “’914”) applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koide et al. (JP 2011-189617 A, machine translation, hereinafter “’617”).
Regarding claims 6-8,10: The disclosure of ‘430 in view of ‘914 is adequately set forth in paragraph 9 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘430 in view of ‘914 does not expressly teach i) the at least one hydrophilic functional group is the alkoxy group, and the functionalized benzophenone is 4,4’-dimethoxybenophenone, ii) the functionalized benzophenone is a benzophenone derivative including at least two different hydrophilic functional groups, and iii) a first hydrophilic functional group of the at least two different hydrophilic functional groups is an alkoxy group, and a second hydrophilic functional group of the at least two different hydrophilic functional groups is a hydroxy group, and iv) a first hydrophilic functional group of the at least two different hydrophilic functional groups is a hydroxy group, a second hydrophilic functional group of the at least two different hydrophilic functional groups is an alkoxy group, and a third hydrophilic functional group of the at least two different hydrophilic functional groups is a sulfonic acid group.
However, ‘617 teaches composite resin mold capable of producing a curable resin molding obtained from a curable composition (Page 5/32, [0001]) comprising the ultraviolet absorber (Page 13/32) including i) the at least one hydrophilic functional group is the alkoxy group, and the functionalized benzophenone is 4,4’-dimethoxybenophenone,ii) the functionalized benzophenone is a benzophenone derivative including at least two different hydrophilic functional groups, iii) a first hydrophilic functional group of the at least two different hydrophilic functional groups is an alkoxy group, and a second hydrophilic functional group of the at least two different hydrophilic functional groups is a hydroxy group such as 2,2’-dihydroxy-4,4’-dimethoxy benzophenone (Page 14/33, [0043]), and iv) a first hydrophilic functional group of the at least two different hydrophilic functional groups is a hydroxy group, a second hydrophilic functional group of the at least two different hydrophilic functional groups is an alkoxy group, and a third hydrophilic functional group of the at least two different hydrophilic functional groups is a sulfonic acid group such as 2-dihydroxy-4-dimethoxy benzophenone-5-suphonate trihydrate (Page 14/33, [0043]) with benefit of providing the composite resin mold, a cured resin molded article obtained from a curable composition can be produced with high accuracy and high efficiency (Page 7/32, [0010]).
In an analogous art of the kit for three-dimensional (3D) printing, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ultraviolet absorber agent by ‘430, so as to include the functionalized benzophenone is a benzophenone derivative including at least two different hydrophilic functional groups, and ii) a first hydrophilic functional group of the at least two different hydrophilic functional groups is an alkoxy group, and a second hydrophilic functional group of the at least two different hydrophilic functional groups is a hydroxy group as taught by ‘617, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing the composite resin mold, a cured resin molded article obtained from a curable composition can be produced with high accuracy and high efficiency as suggested by ‘617 (Page 7/32, [0010]).
Thus, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since the substitution of equivalents (i.e., in view of the art recognized functional equivalence of the organic ultraviolet absorber) requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the equivalency. In re Fount USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v Linde Air Products Co., 85 USPQ 328 (USSC).
12. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mappes et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0250430 A1, hereinafter “’430”) in view of Rudisill et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/033 3914 A1, hereinafter “’914”) applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vincent D. McGinniss (US Pat. No. 4,105,518, hereinafter “’518”).
Regarding claim 9: The disclosure of ‘430 in view of ‘914 is adequately set forth in paragraph 9 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘430 in view of ‘914 does not expressly teach a first hydrophilic functional group of the at least two different hydrophilic functional groups is selected from the group consisting of a hydroxy group and a carboxylic acid group and a second hydrophilic functional group of the at least two different hydrophilic functional groups is an alkyl group.
However, ’518 teaches a water-dispersed composition comprising an ethylenically unsaturated polymer containing ultraviolet sensitizer and dispersed in an aqueous solution. The composition can be uniformly electrocoated onto a cathode substrate to form a paint film containing a constant ratio of minor amounts of ultraviolet sensitizer to polymer, and can be efficiently cured by exposing the paint film to ultraviolet energy (Col. 2, lines 1-12), wherein the ultraviolet sensitizer includes a first hydrophilic functional group of the at least two different hydrophilic functional groups is selected from the group consisting of a hydroxy group and a carboxylic acid group and a second hydrophilic functional group of the at least two different hydrophilic functional groups is an alkyl group (Col. 6, lines 35-68 to Col. 7, lines 1-9) with benefit of providing to solubilizing the polymer in an aqueous solution (Col. 5, lines 53-57).
In an analogous art of the kit for three-dimensional (3D) printing, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ultraviolet absorber agent by ‘430, so as to include a first hydrophilic functional group of the at least two different hydrophilic functional groups is selected from the group consisting of a hydroxy group and a carboxylic acid group and a second hydrophilic functional group of the at least two different hydrophilic functional groups is an alkyl group as taught by ‘518, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing to solubilize the polymer in an aqueous solution (Col. 5, lines 53-57), and to form a paint film containing a constant ratio of minor amounts of ultraviolet sensitizer to polymer, and can be efficiently cured by exposing the paint film to ultraviolet energy as suggested by ‘518 (Col. 2, lines 1-12).
Thus, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since the substitution of equivalents (i.e., in view of the art recognized functional equivalence of the organic ultraviolet absorber) requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the equivalency. In re Fount USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v Linde Air Products Co., 85 USPQ 328 (USSC).
13. Claims 5, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mappes et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0250430 A1, hereinafter “’430”) in view of Rudisill et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/033 3914 A1, hereinafter “’914”) applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoevel et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0048431 A1, hereinafter “’413”).
Regarding claims 5,19-20: The disclosure of ‘430 in view of ‘914 is adequately set forth in paragraph 9 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘430 in view of ‘914 does not expressly teach the functionalized benzophenone is 2-hydroxy-4-methoxy-benzophenone-5-sultonic acid or 2,3,4,4'-tetrahydroxy- benzophenone.
However, ‘413 teaches a stabilizer or polymer composition comprising at least one UV absorber (Page 2, [0015]), wherein the UV absorbers of the class of benzophenones are generally hydroxy benzophenones. These include for example is 2-hydroxy-4-methoxy-benzophenone-5-sultonic acid or 2,2’,4,4'-tetrahydroxy- benzophenone (Page 21, [0278]) when the stabilizer or the polymer composition is used in applications which is exposed to UV light. e.g. to sunlight (Page 18, [0202]).
Thus, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since the substitution of equivalents (i.e., in view of the art recognized functional equivalence of the organic ultraviolet absorber) requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the equivalency. In re Fount USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v Linde Air Products Co., 85 USPQ 328 (USSC).
Response to Arguments
14. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 03/03/2026 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
15. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Examiner Information
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bijan Ahvazi, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571) 270-3449. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9.00 A.M. -7 P.M..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Bijan Ahvazi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
04/03/2026
bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights