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 .
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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PATEL et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0195237, hereinafter PATEL) in view of TAI (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0143730, hereinafter, TAI).
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 9, PATEL teaches a system and a resin relating to rapid prototyping wherein (b) a resin composition comprising (A) an acrylate component with (B) a methacrylate component and (C) a photo initiator (Abstract). More specifically, (A) 5-60% by weight of at least one acrylate component which includes aromatic diacrylates (e.g., bisphenol A diacrylate, Bisphenol F diacrylate, and etc. [0113]), polyethylene glycol diacrylate [0093 and 0114], and monofunctional acrylates including cyclic trimethylolpropane and etc. [0111] (which reads on a crosslinker) and (C) 0.5-5% by weight of a photo initiator [0103]. PATEL teaches the resin composition comprises nanofillers including nanosilica particles [0147].
With regard to the amounts of aromatic di(meth)acrylate, flexible di(meth)acrylate, and crosslinker, given PATEL teaches 5-60% by weight of at least one acrylate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the portion of the prior art's range which is within the range of applicant's claims because it has been held to be obvious to select a value in a known range by optimization for the best results. As to optimization results, a patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of result effective variables when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Boesch, 627 F.2d 272,276,205 USPQ 215,219 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Woodruff 919 F.2d 1575, 1578,16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and In re AIIer, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955).
However, PATEL does not teach the resin composition comprises 0.1-10 phr silica and 5-50 phr of milled carbon fiber.
In the same field of endeavor of a plated resin molded article, TAI teaches the resin composition comprising inorganic fillers include granular or powdered filler, and fibrous filler [0061] which includes silica [0062] and carbon black [0062 and 0064]. The granular or powdered filler has a mean particle size of 100 µm or smaller [0063]. The content of the inorganic filler is within the range of 1 to 55 parts by mass to 100 parts by mass of the sum of (A), (B), and (C) components [0066]. The inorganic fillers improve the mold releasability when resin molded article is intended for plating is injection-molded [0061 and 0066].
Given PATEL teaches the resin composition comprises nanofillers including nanosilica particles [0147], it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the inorganic filler (e.g., silica) of TAI with the resin composition of PATEL for the benefit of improving the mold releasability as taught by TAI [0061 and 0066]. It is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine two ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Linder 457 F,2d 506,509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972).
Regarding claim 3, PATEL teaches the resin composition comprises at least one acrylate component which includes ethoxylated or propoxylated Bisphenol A diacrylate, ethoxylated or propoxylated Bisphenol F diacrylate, and ethoxylated or propoxylated Bisphenol S diacrylate [0113].
Regarding claims 4 and 5, PATEL teaches the resin composition comprises at least one acrylate component which includes polyethylene glycol diacrylate [0093 and 0114] (polyethylene glycol diacrylate is the same as polyethylene glycol 400 diacrylate).
Regarding claims 6-8, PATEL teaches the resin composition comprises at least one acrylate component which includes triacrylates such as trimethylolpropane triacrylate and etc. [0115].
Claims 10, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PATEL et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0195237, hereinafter PATEL) in view of TAI in further view of LISITSIN et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0352782, hereinafter LISITSIN).
Regarding claims 10, 22, and 23, the combined disclosures of PATEL and TAI substantially teaches the present invention, see paragraphs 6-10 above. More specifically, PATEL teaches the resin composition comprises nanofillers including nanosilica particles [0147].
However, the combined disclosures of PATEL and TAI do not teach wherein the silica component comprises fumed silica, precipitated silica, silica sol, silica gel, or pyrogenic silica.
In the same field of endeavor of a method and apparatus for manufacture of 3D objects [0039-0040], LISITINS teaches the method is used for additive manufacturing wherein the invention comprises fumed silicas [0027, 0086, and 0104]. The fumed silica is used as a rheology modifier which controls viscosity and/or can have a thickening action, or are suspending or gelling agents, preventing sedimentation [0027 and 0086]. The fumed silicas provide suitable viscosity of the material to be extruded and enhances the shear-thinning properties [0098]. The amount of fumed silica is in the range of 1-10% [0094] (which is within the claimed range of 0.1-10 phr of silica).
When converted from phr to wt%:
0.1-10 phr of initiator
0.1-10 phr of silica and
5-50 phr milled carbon fiber
The total the three components is 5.2 phr-70 phr.
phr of silica/5.2 phr (total) x 100 wt% = 1.92 wt%
10 phr of silica/70 phr (total) x 100 wt% = 14.28 wt%
The range is from 1.92 wt%-14.28 wt% and LISITINS teaches 1-10% of fumed silica which is within the claimed range.
Given PATEL teaches the resin composition comprises nanofillers including nanosilca particles [0147], it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the fumed silicas of LISITINS with the resin composition of PATEL for the benefit of providing suitable viscosity of the material to be extruded and enhances the shear-thinning properties as taught by LISITINS. It is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine two ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Linder 457 F,2d 506,509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PATEL et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0195237, hereinafter PATEL) in view of TAI in further view of USHIYAMA et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0330464, hereinafter USHIYAMA)
Regarding claim 11, the combined disclosures of PATEL and TAI substantially teaches the present invention, see paragraphs 6-10 above. More specifically, PATEL teaches the resin composition comprises photo initiators.
However, the combined disclosures of PATEL and TAI do not teach wherein the initiator comprises 1,1-bis(t0butylperoxy)-3,3,5-trimethycyclohexane.
In the same field of a resin composition, USHIYAMA teaches the composition comprises radical polymerization initiator including 1,1-bis(t-butylperoxy)3,3,5-trimethylcyclohexane [0104-0106].
Given PATEL teaches the resin composition comprises photo initiators, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the photo initiator of PATEL for the initiator of USHIYAMA for its art recognized function of curing the resin composition. It is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine two ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Linder 457 F,2d 506,509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 13, and 21 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. PATEL et al., the closest prior art of record, fails to teach wherein the resin composition further comprises 10-100 phr non-skid component and wherein the non-skid component comprises crushed/milled glass, silica, or aluminum oxide.
As discussed above, PATEL teaches the resin composition comprises nanofillers including nanosilica particles and nanoalumina [0147] (Note: nanosilica and nanoalumina are well-known anti-skid additives), however, PATEL is silent to the claimed range of 10-100 phr which does not satisfy the claim limitations of the present invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 have been fully considered, therefore, the Office Action mailed 11/05/2025 has been amended in view of the amendments received 01/29/2026 and claims 12 and 13 are objected to because the claims depend on rejected claim 1.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVE V HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-7738. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9 am-5 pm, EST.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (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 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.
DEVE V. HALL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1763
/DEVE V HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763