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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 06 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 1-2, 21, 23-27, and 29-38 remain pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
The claim term “foaming granules” in claim 21 is given the scope of a foaming agent provided in the form of granules comprising a base polymer and the foaming agent as defined in [00236] of applicant specification.
The claim term “masterbatch granules” in claim 21 is given the scope of granules comprising the at least one foaming agent and a carrier material as defined in [00242] of applicant specification.
The claim term “masterbatch filament” in claim 21 is given the scope of a filament comprising at least one foaming agent and a carrier material as defined in [00243] of applicant specification.
The claim term “ deposition rate” in claim 25 is given the scope of the volume of deposited material per unit length as defined in [00299] of applicant specification.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 27 be found allowable, claim 36 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 36 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 27. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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) 1-2, 21, 23-24, 31 and 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR20190067541 of record with reference made to examiner provided machine translation) hereinafter Lee in view of Busbee (US2021/0039306 of record).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches:
A method for additive manufacturing of a three-dimensional object ([0008]), the method comprising:
providing at least one base polymer and at least one foaming agent, in the form of at least one feedstock material ([0016]);
admixing the at least one base polymer and the at least one foaming agent to form a mixture comprising the at least one base polymer and the at least one foaming agent within a polymer processing space of the extruder ([0019, 0045]);
activating the at least one foaming agent by heating the mixture within the polymer processing space of the extruder to a temperature exceeding the activation temperature of the at least one foaming agent, thereby producing a foam ([0013]); and
extruding the foam through an outlet of the extruder and depositing the extruded foam on a deposition surface to form a layer of the three-dimensional object ([0008]).
Lee gives some examples of materials (P0035) but does not teach providing at least one thermoplastic elastomer base polymer;
establishing a stream of the at least one feedstock material within a polymer processing space of an extruder by a pressure-generating mechanism;
admixing the at least one thermoplastic elastomer base polymer and the at least one foaming agent by a rotating independent mixing rotor within the polymer processing space wherein the independent mixing rotor operates independently and at a rotational speed higher than a rotational speed of the pressure-generating mechanism;
In the same field of endeavor regarding additive manufacturing, Busbee teaches providing at least one thermoplastic elastomer base polymer ([0017, 0040]), establishing a stream of the at least one feedstock material within a polymer processing space of an extruder by a pressure-generating mechanism (Fig 17: nozzle 2204, polymer flow channel 2234, mixing chamber 2208, rotary positive displacement pump 2216; [0017, 0214, 0216-0218]) and admixing the at least one thermoplastic elastomer base polymer and the at least one foaming agent ([0071-0072, 0213]) by a rotating independent mixing rotor within the polymer processing space (Fig 17: impeller 2210; [0213]) wherein the independent mixing rotor operates independently ([0017, 0029, 0167-0168]) for the motivation of forming a blended polymer product by causing material flowing through the nozzle to be disrupted through spinning of the impeller, thereby causing mixing of the material to occur ([0116]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mixing as taught by Lee with the mixing as taught by Busbee in order to form a blended polymer product by causing material flowing through the nozzle to be disrupted through spinning of the impeller, thereby causing mixing of the material to occur.
Lee in view of Busbee does not explicitly recite wherein the independent mixing rotor operates at a rotational speed higher than a rotational speed of the pressure-generating mechanism.
However, Busbee teaches a range of speeds for operating the mixing rotor and pressure generating mechanism wherein the independent mixing rotor operates at a rotational speed higher than a rotational speed of the pressure-generating mechanism ([0029, 0167-0168]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the rotational speeds of the independent mixing rotor and pressure-generating mechanism wherein the independent mixing rotor operates at a rotational speed higher than a rotational speed of the pressure-generating mechanism and there would be a reasonable expectation of success since Busbee teaches operating the mixing rotor and pressure generating mechanism at such speeds.
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Busbee teaches the method of claim 1.
Busbee further teaches wherein the base polymer is selected from a group consisting of: thermoplastic polyurethane, thermoplastic polyether block amide ([0101]).
Regarding claim 21, Lee in view of Busbee teaches the method of claim 1.
Lee further teaches wherein the at least one foaming agent that is activated is selected from a group consisting of: thermally expandable microspheres, chemical blowing agent ([0034]); and provided in the form of the at least one feedstock material selected from a group consisting of: foaming granules, masterbatch granules, and masterbatch filament ([0016]; masterbatch filament).
Regarding claim 23, Lee in view of Busbee teaches the method of claim 1.
Lee in view of Busbee does not explicitly recite wherein a volumetric flow rate of extruding is in a range from 0.2 cm3/min to 20 cm3/min.
However, Busbee teaches a range of values for the volumetric flow rate of the extruding that overlaps with the claimed range ([0150]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the volumetric flow rate of the extruding as taught by Busbee that overlaps with the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 24, Lee in view of Busbee teaches the method of claim 1.
Lee in view of Busbee does not explicitly recite wherein a layer height of the layer is in a range from 0.3 mm to less than 1.8 mm.
However, Busbee teaches a range of values for the layer height that overlaps with the claimed range ([0003]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the layer height as taught by Busbee that overlaps with the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 31, Lee in view of Busbee teaches the method of claim 1.
Lee in view of Busbee does not explicitly recite wherein the rotational speed of the independent mixing rotor is greater than 0.3 revolutions per second.
However, Busbee teaches a range of values for the rotational speed of the independent mixing rotor that overlaps with the claimed range ([0167]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the rotational speed of the independent mixing rotor as taught by Busbee that overlaps with the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 33, Lee in view of Busbee teaches the method of claim 1.
Lee in view of Busbee does not explicitly recite wherein a layer height of the layer of the deposited thermoplastic elastomer foam is less than 1.8 mm.
However, Busbee teaches a range of values for the layer height that overlaps with the claimed range ([0003]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the layer height as taught by Busbee that overlaps with the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 34, Lee in view of Busbee teaches the method of claim 1.
Lee in view of Busbee does not explicitly recite wherein a volumetric flow rate of the extruding is at least 0.2 cm3/min.
However, Busbee teaches a range of values for the volumetric flow rate of the extruding that overlaps with the claimed range ([0150]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the volumetric flow rate of the extruding as taught by Busbee that overlaps with the claimed ranges.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Busbee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Busbee et al. (US2019/0039311 of record) hereinafter Busbee ‘311.
Regarding claim 32, Lee in view of Busbee teaches the method of claim 1.
Lee in view of Busbee does not teach wherein a relative density of the polymeric foam is in a range from 0.14 to 0.4.
However, Busbee teaches that the density of the foamed article can be controlled ([0105]). Lee in view of Busbee is silent as to the density of the polymeric foam.
In the same field of endeavor regarding additive manufacturing, Busbee ‘311 teaches 3d printing a polymeric foamed article with a range of values for the density of the polymeric foam that overlaps with the claimed range ([0052, 0126, 0172]; a relative density of 0.14-0.4 converts to ~8.736-24.96 pounds per cubic foot).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the density of the polymeric foam as taught by Busbee ‘311 that overlaps with the claimed ranges and there would be a reasonable expectation of success since the prior art teaches 3d printing of polymeric foamed articles.
Claim(s) 25-26, 29-30, 35, and 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Busbee and Mulholland et al. (US2023/0219299) hereinafter Mulholland.
Regarding claim 25, Lee teaches:
A method for additive manufacturing of a three-dimensional object ([0008]), the method comprising:
providing at least one base polymer and at least one foaming agent, in the form of at least one feedstock material ([0016: 0025]);
establishing a stream of the at least one feedstock within a polymer processing space of an extruder ([0019, 0045]);
admixing the at least one base polymer and the at least one foaming agent to form a mixture comprising the at least one base polymer and the at least one foaming agent within a polymer processing space of the extruder ([0019, 0045]);
activating the at least one foaming agent by heating the mixture within the polymer processing space of the extruder to a temperature exceeding the activation temperature of the at least one foaming agent, thereby producing a foam ([0013]); and
extruding the foam through an outlet of the extruder and depositing the extruded foam on a deposition surface to form a layer of the three-dimensional object ([0008]);
Lee does not teach slicing a computerized model of the three-dimensional object into a finite number of layers and calculating a tool path for deposition thereof;
providing at least one thermoplastic elastomer base polymer;
establishing a stream of the at least one feedstock material within a polymer processing space of an extruder with a pressure-generating mechanism;
admixing the at least one thermoplastic elastomer base polymer and the at least one foaming agent by a rotating independent mixing rotor of the extruder within the polymer processing space of the extruder;
moving the extruder nozzle relative to the deposition surface along the tool path to form a layer of the three-dimensional object;
wherein the tool path comprises a first point and a second point such that a deposition rate at the second point is greater than a deposition rate at the first point; wherein a mass flow rate of the stream at the first point is substantially equal to the mass flow rate of the stream at the second point;
wherein the independent mixing rotor operates independently and a rotational speed of the independent mixing rotor at the first point is substantially equal to a rotational speed of the independent mixing rotor at the second point and is higher than a rotational speed of the pressure-generating mechanism;
and wherein a controller is provided and configured to adjust a movement speed of the extruder nozzle.
In the same field of endeavor regarding additive manufacturing, Busbee teaches:
slicing a computerized model of the three-dimensional object into a finite number of layers and calculating a tool path for deposition thereof ([0142]);
providing at least one thermoplastic elastomer base polymer ([0017, 0040]);
establishing a stream of the at least one feedstock material within a polymer processing space of an extruder with a pressure-generating mechanism (Fig 17: nozzle 2204, polymer flow channel 2234, mixing chamber 2208, rotary positive displacement pump 2216; [0017, 0214, 0216-0218]);
admixing the at least one thermoplastic elastomer base polymer and the at least one foaming agent ([0071-0072, 0213]) by a rotating independent mixing rotor of the extruder within the polymer processing space of the extruder (Fig 17: impeller 2210; [0213]);
extruding the thermoplastic elastomer foam through an outlet of the extruder and depositing the extruded polymeric foam on a deposition surface by moving the extruder nozzle relative to the deposition surface along the tool path to form a layer of the three-dimensional object ([0036, 0079]);
wherein the tool path comprises a first point and a second point ([0142]);
wherein the independent mixing rotor operates independently ([0017, 0029, 0167-0168]);
and wherein a controller is provided and configured to adjust a movement speed of the extruder nozzle ([0141]) for the motivation of forming a blended polymer product by causing material flowing through the nozzle to be disrupted through spinning of the impeller, thereby causing mixing of the material to occur and controlling the deposition of the product onto the substrate ([0010, 0116]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Lee with the mixing and control as taught by Busbee in order to form a blended polymer product by causing material flowing through the nozzle to be disrupted through spinning of the impeller, thereby causing mixing of the material to occur and to control the deposition of the product onto the substrate.
Lee in view of Busbee does not explicitly recite wherein the independent mixing rotor operates at a rotational speed higher than a rotational speed of the pressure-generating mechanism.
However, Busbee teaches a range of speeds for operating the mixing rotor and pressure generating mechanism wherein the independent mixing rotor operates at a rotational speed higher than a rotational speed of the pressure-generating mechanism ([0029, 0167-0168]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the rotational speeds of the independent mixing rotor and pressure-generating mechanism wherein the independent mixing rotor operates at a rotational speed higher than a rotational speed of the pressure-generating mechanism and there would be a reasonable expectation of success since Busbee teaches operating the mixing rotor and pressure generating mechanism at such speeds.
Lee in view of Busbee does not teach wherein the tool path comprises a first point and a second point such that a deposition rate at the second point is greater than a deposition rate at the first point; wherein a mass flow rate of the stream at the first point is substantially equal to the mass flow rate of the stream at the second point;
and wherein a controller is provided and configured to adjust a movement speed of the extruder nozzle at the second point to be lower than a movement speed thereof at the first point to thereby provide the difference between the deposition rate at the second point and the deposition rate at the first point.
In the same field of endeavor regarding additive manufacturing, Mulholland teaches a tool path comprising a first point and a second point such that a deposition rate at the second point is greater than a deposition rate at the first point by adjusting a movement speed of the nozzle for the motivation of printing mechanical testing specimens and keeping a constant volumetric flow rate to allow the extruded material to have the same residence time and deposition temperature (Fig 1: first region 20, second region 24; [0021-0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller as taught by Lee in view of Busbee with the tool path and extrusion width adjustment as taught by Mulholland in order to print mechanical testing specimens and keep a constant volumetric flow rate to allow the extruded material to have the same residence time and deposition temperature.
Lee in view of Busbee and Mulholland does not explicitly recite adjusting a movement speed of the extruder nozzle at the second point to be lower than a movement speed thereof at the first point.
However, this limitation is inherently required by Mulholland. Mulholland teaches that the height of the tip can be kept constant while the flow rate is kept constant and that the bead width, i.e., the amount of material deposited in a linear movement of the print head, is thus varied by the print speed ([0025-0026]). Since the volumetric flow rate and height is kept constant, then the bead width is logically inherently dictated by the print speed in a relationship where the amount of material extruded in a given length of the tool path increases as the speed of the print head is decreased, i.e., the wider bead width in the second region 24 must logically be a result of an decrease in the print speed as compared to that in the first region 20 given the above conditions.
Regarding claim 26, Lee in view of Busbee and Mulholland teaches the method of claim 25.
Busbee further teaches wherein the pressure generating mechanism is a screw extrusion mechanism comprising at least one screw ([0062]).
Lee in view of Busbee and Mulholland does not explicitly recite wherein the substantial equality of the mass flow rates in the first and the second points is achieved by a substantial equality of rotational speeds of said screw at the first and the second points. However, the mass flow rate generated by the screw extrusion mechanism is inherently tied to the rotational speed of the screw, and Busbee teaches a singular screw for the pressure generating mechanism (Fig 17; [0062]).
Regarding claim 29, Lee in view of Busbee and Mulholland teaches the method of claim 25.
Lee in view of Busbee and Mulholland does not explicitly recite wherein a volumetric flow rate of extruding is in a range from 0.2 cm3/min to 20 cm3/min.
However, Busbee teaches a range of values for the volumetric flow rate of the extruding that overlaps with the claimed range ([0150]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the volumetric flow rate of the extruding as taught by Busbee that overlaps with the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 30, Lee in view of Busbee and Mulholland teaches the method of claim 25.
Lee in view of Busbee and Mulholland does not explicitly recite wherein a layer height of the layer is in a range from 0.3 mm to less than 1.8 mm.
However, Busbee teaches a range of values for the layer height that overlaps with the claimed range ([0003]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the layer height as taught by Busbee that overlaps with the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 35, Lee in view of Busbee and Mulholland teaches the method of claim 25.
Lee in view of Busbee does not explicitly recite wherein the rotational speed of the independent mixing rotor is greater than 0.3 revolutions per second.
However, Busbee teaches a range of values for the rotational speed of the independent mixing rotor that overlaps with the claimed range ([0167]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the rotational speed of the independent mixing rotor as taught by Busbee that overlaps with the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 37, Lee in view of Busbee and Mulholland teaches the method of claim 25.
Lee in view of Busbee and Mulholland does not explicitly recite wherein a layer height of the layer of the deposited thermoplastic elastomer foam is less than 1.8 mm.
However, Busbee teaches a range of values for the layer height that overlaps with the claimed range ([0003]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the layer height as taught by Busbee that overlaps with the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 38, Lee in view of Busbee and Mulholland teaches the method of claim 25.
Lee in view of Busbee and Mulholland does not explicitly recite wherein a volumetric flow rate of the extruding is at least 0.2 cm3/min.
However, Busbee teaches a range of values for the volumetric flow rate of the extruding that overlaps with the claimed range ([0150]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the volumetric flow rate of the extruding as taught by Busbee that overlaps with the claimed ranges.
Claim(s) 27 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Busbee and Mulholland as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Busbee ‘311.
Regarding claim 27, Lee in view of Busbee and Mulholland teaches the method of claim 25.
Lee in view of Busbee and Mulholland does not teach wherein the deposited thermoplastic elastomer foam is a thermoplastic elastomer foam with relative density in a range from 0.14 to 0.4.
However, Busbee teaches that the density of the foamed article can be controlled ([0105]). Lee in view of Busbee is silent as to the density of the polymeric foam.
In the same field of endeavor regarding additive manufacturing, Busbee ‘311 teaches 3d printing a polymeric foamed article with a range of values for the density of the polymeric foam that overlaps with the claimed range ([0052, 0126, 0172]; a relative density of 0.14-0.4 converts to ~8.736-24.96 pounds per cubic foot).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the density of the polymeric foam as taught by Busbee ‘311 that overlaps with the claimed ranges and there would be a reasonable expectation of success since the prior art teaches 3d printing of polymeric foamed articles.
Regarding claim 36, Lee in view of Busbee and Mulholland teaches the method of claim 25.
Lee in view of Busbee and Mulholland does not teach wherein a relative density of the deposited thermoplastic elastomer foam is in a range from 0.14 to 0.4.
However, Busbee teaches that the density of the foamed article can be controlled ([0105]). Lee in view of Busbee is silent as to the density of the polymeric foam.
In the same field of endeavor regarding additive manufacturing, Busbee ‘311 teaches 3d printing a polymeric foamed article with a range of values for the density of the polymeric foam that overlaps with the claimed range ([0052, 0126, 0172]; a relative density of 0.14-0.4 converts to ~8.736-24.96 pounds per cubic foot).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the density of the polymeric foam as taught by Busbee ‘311 that overlaps with the claimed ranges and there would be a reasonable expectation of success since the prior art teaches 3d printing of polymeric foamed articles.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Lee does not teach a thermoplastic elastomer base polymer. However, Lee is not relied upon for teaching of the above subject matter. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that Lee does not teach the relational speed feature. However, Lee is not relied upon for teaching of the above subject matter. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that Busbee does not teach a thermoplastic elastomer base polymer. However, Busbee teaches that the input can be a thermoplastic elastomer to form a product comprising thermoplastic elastomer ([0017, 0040]) which overlaps in at least one material with the teachings of Lee ([0025]).
Applicant argues that Busbee does not teach the relational speed feature. However, Busbee teaches a range of speeds for operating the mixing rotor and pressure generating mechanism wherein the independent mixing rotor operates at a rotational speed higher than a rotational speed of the pressure-generating mechanism ([0029, 0167-0168]).
Applicant argues that Busbee ‘311 does not teach the relational speed feature. However, Busbee ‘311 is not relied upon for teaching of the above subject matter. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that the combination of prior art references constitutes impermissible hindsight. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Applicant argues that there is no reason to incorporate the impeller of Busbee into the extruder system of Lee. However, in the art rejection above, Lee teaches motivation in forming a blended polymer product by causing material flowing through the nozzle to be disrupted through spinning of the impeller, thereby causing mixing of the material to occur ([0116]). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues that there is no reasonable expectation of success. Applicant argues that the affidavit filed 05/28/2025 establishes that Busbee provides no guidance on parameters for practicing the claimed method. However, this is a gross mischaracterization of the affidavit, especially considering that the affidavit contains no discussion or even mention of the relational speed feature. The examiner notes that the affidavit actually recites that Busbee “lacks detailed descriptions of material selection for a polymeric foam, including its relative density in a narrow range, presently specified in claim 1, as well as specific manufacturing parameters (layer height and volumetric flow rate of extrusion) necessary to achieve the claimed invention” (p. 5). The examiner notes that “claim 1” in this instance refers to the claims filed 05/28/2025 which have since been amended. Busbee is not relied upon for a teaching of the density. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The affidavit’s characterization that Busbee lacks teachings of the layer height and volumetric flow rate of extrusion are also unreasonable as the ranges recited in the claims are made obvious by ranges taught in Busbee. Busbee teaches a layer height of up to 1 mm, as compared to the claimed range of less than 1.8 mm. Busbee teaches a volumetric flow rate of at least 0.3 ml/min, as compared to the claimed range of at least 0.2 cm3/min. The examiner notes that the taught ranges and claimed ranges are overlapping and that the endpoints of said ranges are very close. As such, it would not take undue experimentation to arrive at the claimed ranges from those taught by Busbee. Rather than undue experimentation, a POSHITA would merely need to select any one of the appropriate ranges as taught by Busbee to arrive at the above limitations. The examiner further notes that the affidavit does not contain any discussion of the above ranges and the affidavit amounts to a general conclusory statement with no reasoning or data regarding the above subject matter. The affidavit further asserts that Busbee contains no working examples of producing thermoplastic elastomer foams. However, Busbee teaches that the input and final product contain thermoplastic elastomer ([0017, 0040]), use of chemical foaming agents ([0189]), and that the deposition material is a foamed product ([0114]). As such, the assertions of the affidavit are either directly contradicted by the prior art, or fails to address any specific teachings/suggestions relied upon in the art rejection.
Applicant argues that Pawar and the ‘509 reference provides evidence of the unpredictability of the art. However, neither Pawar nor the ‘509 reference is relied upon in any art rejection, and it is not clear how any teaching of Pawar or the ‘509 reference negates any of the explicit recitations of the cited prior art.
Applicants arguments regarding the legal analysis of the affidavit are moot in light of the amendment to the claims regarding the relational speed feature. The examiner notes that the affidavit contains no discussion of the relational speed feature in contention and as such it is not clear how such an affidavit can be used to support any arguments relating to the above claimed subject matter.
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
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 ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741