DETAILED ACTION
An Office Action was mailed 01/16/2026. Applicant filed a response on 04/14/2026, amended claims 11, 13, 16-18, and 20; cancelled claims 12, 19 and 24; and added claim 26.
Claims 11, 13-18, 20-23 and 25-26 are pending.
Claims 11, 13, 16, 18, 20-21, 23 and 25-26 are rejected.
Claims 14-15, 17 and 22 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, lines 10-11, it is suggested to amend the term “the an orange-emitting” to “the orange-emitting”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 13, 20-21, 23 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Stasiak et al, WO 2017/188961 A1 (Stasiak), taken in view of evidence by Polysciences, “Fluoresbrite® YO Carboxylate Microspheres 0.2µm” (“Polysciences YO”) and Polysciences, “Fluoresbrite® YG Carboxylate Microspheres 1.0µm” (“Polysciences YG”).
A copy of Stasiak was provided with the IDS filed 03/29/2023.
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, the reference constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding claims 13, 23 and 25, Stasiak discloses a photoluminescent material set for 3-D printing 3-dimensional parts (Stasiak; [0008]). The set comprises: 1) a thermoplastic polymer powder, 2) a photoluminescent ink, and 3) a fusing ink (Stasiak; [0010]). The fusing ink can include a fusing agent capable of absorbing electromagnetic radiation to produce heat as claimed (Stasiak; [0010]).
The photoluminescent agents can photoexcite at different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, with different amounts and mixtures of photoluminescent agents to provide different photoluminescent intensities (Stasiak; [0065]). The photoluminescent composite layer can photo luminesce at a wavelength between about 302nm or about 390nm to about 700nm (Satsiak; [0062]).
Photo luminesing at a wavelength between about 302nm or about 390nm to about 700nm includes orange- and green-emitting photo luminescing agents as claimed.
The photoluminescent agent can include a photoluminescent pigment. The photoluminescent pigments can be nanoparticles or microparticles (i.e., pigment particles as claimed) (Stasiak; [0028] and [0030]). Various photoluminescent pigments may be used, such as europium doped strontium aluminates, YG Carboxylate Microspheres, YO Carboxylate Microspheres, and mixtures thereof (Stasiak; [0029]).
As is evidenced on page 2 of “Polysciences YO,” YO Carboxylate Microspheres are yellow-orange (i.e., orange-emitting photoluminescent pigment particles).
As is evidenced on page 2 of “Polysciences YG,” YG Carboxylate Microspheres are yellow-green (i.e., green-emitting photoluminescent pigment particles).
The material set used in the 3-dimensional printing system can include any of the components taught by Stasiak, including thermoplastic polymer powder, a photoluminescent pigment or combinations thereof, and a fusing ink (Stasiak; [0049]).
In Example 1, Stasiak exemplifies a 3-dimensional printing system used to print 3-D parts having a photoluminescent composite layer on a surface of the part body. The print material set includes a photoluminescent ink and fusing ink (Stasiak; [0079]). The fusing ink comprises carbon black, i.e., wherein the fusing agent is the colorant carbon black of claims 23 and 25 (Stasiak; [0079]). The inks were jetted into a bed of nylon particles (i.e., thermoplastic polymer particles) (Stasiak; [0080]).
Example 2 uses the same method of Example 1, but using different photoluminescent inks. The 3-dimensional printed part was made with separate photoluminescent inks including Carboxy YO 400nm nanospheres, Carboxy NYO 200nm nanospheres (i.e., orange-emitting photoluminescent pigment particles), Carboxy YG 100nm nanospheres, and Carboxy YG 200nm nanospheres (i.e., green-emitting photoluminescent pigment particles) (Stasiak; [0083]).
Therefore, Stasiak teaches 3-dimensional print material sets comprising: a build composition comprising thermoplastic polymer particles, green-emitting photoluminescent pigment particles, and orange-emitting photoluminescent pigment particles, wherein the build composition has a spectral signature characteristic of the presence of the green-emitting photoluminescent pigment particle and the orange-emittinq photoluminescent pigment particle in combination; and an inkjet fusing composition comprising a fusing agent capable of absorbing electromagnetic radiation to produce heat as claimed.
Although Stasiak does not explicitly teach that the print material set comprises a build composition comprising a “mixture” of thermoplastic polymer particles, a green-emitting photoluminescent pigment particle, and an orange-emitting photoluminescent pigment particle, the combination of known substances for the same purpose has been held to have been prima facie obvious. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from there having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerhoevn, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the thermoplastic polymer particles and photoluminescent pigment particles of Stasiak to form a build composition “mixture” as claimed in order to provide a 3-dimensional print material set with the same purpose or use as the claimed invention, i.e., to form a 3-D printed part having a spectral signature characteristic of the presence of the green-emitting photoluminescent pigment particle and the orange-emittinq photoluminescent pigment particle in combination, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 20, Stasiak is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above. The fusing inks can absorb enough energy to boost the temperature of the thermoplastic polymer powder above the melting or softening point of the polymer as claimed (Stasiak; [0051]).
Regarding claim 21, Stasiak is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above. The exemplified fusing composition comprises the fusing agent, i.e., carbon black, in an amount of 5 weight% (Stasiak; [0079]). 5 wt% falls within the claimed weight% range of 0.1-20 wt%.
Regarding claim 26, Stasiak is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above. Stasiak teaches that the photoluminescent agent in present in the photoluminescent ink in amounts ranging from 0.05-8 wt% (Stasiak; [0034]). By adjusting the mass of photoluminescent agent per volume of the photoluminescent composite layer, the desired photoluminescence can be achieved (Stasiak; [0058]).
Stasiak does not explicitly teach wherein the green-emitting photoluminescent pigment particle is present in an amount ranging from 0.1 wt% to 0.4 wt%, based on a total weight of the build composition; and the orange-emitting photoluminescent pigment particle is present in an amount ranging from 0.8 wt% to 1.0 wt%, based on a total weight of the build composition.
It has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the weight percent of the photoluminescent pigments, including over the presently claimed, in order to achieve the desired photoluminescence of the 3-dimensional printed part.
Claims 11, 13, 16, 18, 20-21, 23 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nauka et al, WO 2017/014784 A1 (Nauka) in view of Keller et al, US 2010/014550 A1 (Keller), taken in view of evidence by Dutta et al, “Green to orange colour tuneable Y2O3:Eu3+ phosphor: A study of structural, compositional and optical properties” (Dutta).
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Nauka teaches a three-dimensional printing build material composition including an additive capable of increasing the amount of irradiated energy that is turned into build material composition/powder heating (i.e., a fusing agent). This additive is uniformly distributed within the build material (i.e., a single polymer matrix) (Nauka; [0014]).
The radiation absorbing additive is mixed with polymer particles (Nauka; [0032]). The polymers may be any polymer suitable for 3-D printing, such as polyamides, acrylic polymers, polyether ketones, and poly(methyl methacrylates), which are generally in powder form (i.e., thermoplastic polymer particles of claim 13, including the specific polymer powders of claim 11) (Nauka; [0039], [0041], [0113] and [0121]). Nauka exemplifies using nylon 12 and polyether ketone particles as claimed (Nauka; [0113]
The build materials are used to make 3-D objects (claim 11) (Nauka; [0088]).
Nauka also teaches a three-dimensional object printing kit including the build material composition (i.e., polymeric powder) and a fusing agent (claim 13) (Nauka; [0049]). The fusing agent enhances the absorbance of electromagnetic radiation and converts the absorbed radiation to thermal energy, thereby to heating the build material composition (claim 13) (Nauka; [0022] and [0059]).
Nauka teaches that the radiation absorbing additive should be selected and/or added in amounts that do not substantially change the color of build material composition, or degrade the properties of the build material (Nauka; [0028]). One may incorporate additives to the build material to correct modifications or improve properties (Nauka; [0029] and [0046]).
Nauka does not explicitly teach a 3-D printed part or a 3-dimensional print material set comprising an orange-emitting photoluminescent pigment particle and a green-emitting photoluminescent pigment particle, wherein the composition has a spectral signature characteristic of the presence of the orange- and green-emitting photoluminescent pigment particles in combination as claimed.
With respect to the difference, Keller teaches a method labelling the starting materials in powder form that are used in layer additive manufacturing methods such as 3D printing, as well as the use of such labeled powders in building materials for 3D printing (Keller; [0001] and [0014]). By such methods, it is possible to exactly relate manufactured parts to a specific starting powder. Even after many years, the starting material and manufacturer of the respective parts can be identified. It is further possible to carry out identification even when only arbitrary small fragments of parts are available (Keller; [0008]).
Such identification is useful, for example, for failure analysis of the part. Even when the object is flawless, it can be desirable to know the supplier of the laser sintering powder that was used (Keller; [0003]).
The method is carried out by mixing the powder, including polymer powders, with a marker powder (Keller; [0011] and [0019]). The marker substance needs to be colorless and added in such a proportion that it does not modify the properties or color of the starting powder (Keller; [0011-0012]). In order to achieve this, a marker substance is chosen which shows luminescence when irradiated with light having a wavelength outside the visible range, such as infrared or ultraviolet light. By identifying the wavelength and/or intensity of a luminescent emission, it can be determined whether a marker had been added to the powder. In general, an identification is possible via registering a specific spectral distribution in the emitted light (Keller; [0012-0013]). Three dimensional parts made from the labeled powder can be analyzed by the methods (Keller; [0015] and claim 29).
Two different tracers can be added to the powder. The two different tracers show a light emission in different wavelength regions and/or have different exciting wavelengths. Then, a specific coding can be created by setting the proportion of the two added marker substances with respect to one another. The proportion is then determined in the analysis of the powder or part by setting the amounts of light that are emitted in both different wavelength regions in a relation to one another (i.e., a first photoluminescent agent and a second photoluminescent agent, wherein the composition has a spectral signature characteristic of the presence of the first luminescent agent and the second photoluminescent agent in combination) (Keller; [0019] and claims 15-16).
The method comprises mixing the powder with at least one salt of the metal of the rare earths, wherein the salt has the property of showing luminescence, and wherein the salt is selected from yttrium oxide, yttrium oxysulfide, or sodium yttrium fluoride, in each case doped with erbium or another element of rare earths (Keller; claims 15 and 23).
As is evidenced by Dutta, the emission color of Y2O3:Eu+3 shifted from green to orange with an increase in concentration of Eu from 1 to 5 mole% (Dutta; Abstract and Conclusion, last sentence). The rare earth ions like Eu3+, Tb3+, and Dy3+ emit luminescence in the visible spectrum. Specifically, Eu3+ emits orange to red light, Tb3+ emits green light and Dy3+ emits blue light (Dutter; page 23355, para 1).
Keller is analogous art as it teaches 3D printed parts comprising polymer particles, a first photoluminescent agent, and a second photoluminescent agent, wherein the composition has a spectral signature characteristic of the presence of the first luminescent agent and the second photoluminescent agent in combination.
In light the motivation provided by Keller to add two different tracers having a light emission in different wavelength regions and/or having different exciting wavelengths to polymer powder 3D build compositions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a first photoluminescent agent or tracer, and a second photoluminescent agent or tracer, thereby resulting in compositions having a spectral signature characteristic of the presence of the first luminescent agent and the second photoluminescent agent, to the 3D print material sets of Nauka which are used to make 3D printed parts, in order to enable the identification of the starting powder build materials and/or part manufacturer, even after many years or if only small fragments of parts are available. Those skilled in the art would recognize the advantage of incorporating such tracer materials in the 3D-printed parts of Nauka in order to, for example, analyze failures which may occur in the future and devise appropriate repairs for such 3D printed parts. Further, Nauka teaches that additives may be used to improve the build materials as long as such additives do not alter the properties of the color of the compositions. Because Keller teaches such tracers can be used in amounts that do not alter the properties or color of the build materials, while providing the benefits of future identification, those skilled in the art would have been motivated to add such tracers to the 3D printed parts and 3D print material sets of Nauka.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use yttrium oxide, yttrium oxysulfide, or sodium yttrium fluoride, in each case doped with erbium or another element of rare earths, as luminescent agents in the 3D-printed parts and kits of Nauka in view of Keller because Keller teaches such luminescent agents as appropriate for addition to the polymer powders to enable the identification of the starting powder build materials and/or part manufacturer.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the luminescent salt and rare earth dopant, including green- and orange-emitting Y2O3:Eu+3 and combinations thereof, for use in the 3-D parts and print material sets of Nauka in view of Keller, in order to obtain 3-D printed part with luminescent characteristics which enable easy identification of the starting powder build materials and/or part manufacturer, even after many years or if only small fragments of parts are available, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 16, 18, 23 and 25, Nauka in view of Keller are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claims 11 and 13 for the reasons discussed above. The radiation absorbing additives include organic near-infrared absorbers (near-IR absorbing dyes), inorganic near-IR absorbers (near-IR absorbing pigments), and carbon black (Nauka; [0034-0037] and [0064-0065]). Nauka further exemplifies fusing and radiation absorbing compositions comprising near-IR absorbing pigments and dyes as claimed (Nauka; [0077] and [0013], Table 1, Example 11-1).
Regarding claim 20, Nauka in view of Keller are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above. The fusing agent may sufficiently elevate the temperature of the build material above the melting point, allow curing to take place (Nauka; [0059]).
Given that Nauka disclose 3-D printed parts comprising fusing agents that overlap the presently claimed fusing agents, including fusing agents that can have a temperature boosting capacity sufficient to increase the temperature of the polymer powder above the melting or softening point of the polymer powder, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use fusing agents that have a temperature boosting capacity sufficient to increase the temperature of the polymer powder above the melting or softening point of the polymer powder in the 3-D parts and kits of Nauka in view of Keller and further in view of Dutter, which is both disclosed by Nauka and encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 21, Nauka in view of Keller are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above. The amount of the active material (e.g. carbon black) that is present in the fusing agent ranges from 2.0-6.0wt% (Nauka; [0065]). 2.0-6.0wt% falls within the claimed range of 0.1-20wt% fusing agent in the fusing composition.
Regarding claim 26, Nauka in view of Keller are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above.
Nauka does not explicitly teach the green-emitting photoluminescent pigment particle is present in an amount ranging from 0.1 wt% to 0.4 wt%, based on a total weight of the build composition; and the orange-emitting photoluminescent pigment particle is present in an amount ranging from 0.8 wt% to 1.0 wt%, based on a total weight of the build composition, wherein the build composition consists of the thermoplastic polymer particles, the green-emitting photoluminescent pigment particle, and the orange-emitting photoluminescent pigment particle.
With respect to the difference, Keller teaches in order to avoid the situation that the characteristics of the starting powder are modified in a too strong way by the marker powder, the marker powder in the mixture should not exceed 20% by weight, more preferably 10% by weight, even more preferably 0.1 to 10% by weight (Keller; [0011]). 0.1 to 10% by weight overlaps in scope with the 0.1 wt% to 0.4 wt%, based on a total weight of the build composition; and 0.8 wt% to 1.0 wt%, based on a total weight of the build composition.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
1) Applicant’s Amendments have overcome the claim objections previously of record. Note the new claim objection due to Applicant’s claim amendments.
2) The cancellation of claim 24 has overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection previously of record.
3) Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/14/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection over Wang et al, CN 106543661A (Wang), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 11 has been withdrawn.
Specifically, although Wang teaches 3-D printed parts comprising mixtures of luminous and fluorescent powders, Wang does not disclose 3-D printed parts comprising a green-emitting photoluminescent pigment particle and an orange-emitting photoluminescent pigment particle dispersed therein as presently claimed. Further, Wang only teaches the polymer polylactic acid (PLA). Wang does not teach or suggest a thermoplastic polymer matrix is formed from fused polymer powder selected from the group consisting of nylon 6 powder, nylon 9 powder, nylon 11 powder, nylon 12 powder, nylon 66 powder, nylon 612 powder, thermoplastic polyurethane powder, polyether ketone powder, polyacrylate powder, and combinations thereof as presently claimed.
4) Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/14/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection over Miller, US 2016/0347005 A1 (Miller), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 11 has been withdrawn.
Specifically, although Miller teaches 3-D printed parts comprising mixtures of two fluorophores, Wang does not disclose 3-D printed parts comprising a green-emitting photoluminescent pigment particle and an orange-emitting photoluminescent pigment particle dispersed therein as presently claimed. Further, Miller only teaches the polymer acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS). Miller does not teach or suggest a thermoplastic polymer matrix is formed from fused polymer powder selected from the group consisting of nylon 6 powder, nylon 9 powder, nylon 11 powder, nylon 12 powder, nylon 66 powder, nylon 612 powder, thermoplastic polyurethane powder, polyether ketone powder, polyacrylate powder, and combinations thereof, as presently claimed.
5) Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/14/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection of claims 11-13, 16, 18-19, 21 and 23-25, and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 20, over Hinch et al, WO 2017/188963 A1 (Hinch), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding claim 11, Hinch discloses a 3-dimensional part comprising: 1) a first matrix of fusing agent and thermoplastic polymer powder, 2) a security feature including a second matrix of fusing agent, thermoplastic polymer powder, and a photoluminescent agent, and 3) a masking feature including a third matrix of fusing agent and thermoplastic polymer powder (emphasis added) (Hinch; [0012]). Hinch does not disclose or suggest a 3-D printed part comprising a single thermoplastic polymer matrix as presently claimed (emphasis added).
Regarding claims 11 and 13, although Hinch discloses that the photoluminescent agent can be a combination of photoluminescent agents that photoexcite at different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation to provide different photoluminescent intensities (Hinch; [0029]), Hinch does not teach using a mixture of a green-emitting photoluminescent pigment particle and an orange-emitting photoluminescent pigment particle as presently claimed.
6) Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/14/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection of claims 11-13, 16, 18-19, 21 and 23-25 over Stasiak et al, WO 2017/188963 A1 (Stasiak), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the 3-D printed parts of claims 11 and 16-18, Stasiak teaches 3-D printed parts comprising a part body (i.e., a first polymer matrix) and a photoluminescent composite layer (i.e., a second polymeric matrix) (Stasiak; [0055-0057]). This can be seen in Fig. 4 wherein the photoluminescent composite layer 420 is applied to the part body 410 (Stasiak; [0062] and Fig 4). See also Examples 1-3 wherein a photoluminescent composite layer is formed on a 3-D printed part (Stasiak; [0079-0086]). Stasiak, therefore, does not teach 3-D printed parts having a single thermoplastic polymer matrix as presently claimed (emphasis added).
Regarding the claimed 3-dimensional print material sets of claims 13, 20-21, 23 and 25-26, Stasiak does not anticipate the claimed sets because Stasiak does not explicitly teach sets comprising a build composition comprising a “mixture” of thermoplastic polymer particles, a green-emitting photoluminescent pigment particle, and an orange-emitting photoluminescent pigment particle as presently claimed.
However, upon further consideration and search due to Applicant’s claim amendments, a new grounds of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Stasiak taken in view of evidence by “Polysciences YO” and “Polysciences YG”.
7). With regard to claim 13 and Stasiak, Applicant argues:
“Claim 13 now recites, in part, ‘a build composition comprising a mixture of thermoplastic polymer particles, a green-emitting photoluminescent pigment particle, and an orange-emitting photoluminescent pigment particle....’ … Thus, Applicant's pigment particles are mixed with the thermoplastic polymer particles as part of the build material composition.
In contrast, Stasiak teaches a thermoplastic polymer powder that is spread onto a bed, a separate photoluminescent ink, and separate a fusing ink. (Paragraphs [0051] and [0047]). As described in paragraph [0051], Stasiak teaches printing the photoluminescent ink and the fusing ink onto the powder. The components of the photoluminescent ink and the fusing ink are not part of the thermoplastic polymer powder.”
Remarks, page 6.
Although Stasiak does not anticipate sets as presently claimed, the Examiner maintains that the mixing of the components within the set would have been an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons set forth on pages 6-7 above. Further, amended claim 13 does not require the fusing composition to a part of the build composition “mixture.” This is consistent with Example 2 of Applicant’s specification (paragraphs [0076-0079]), which does not appear to use a fusing composition.
8) Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/14/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Nauka in view of Keller have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, Nauka in view of Keller do not explicitly teach a mixture of green- and orange-emitting photoluminescent pigments as presently claimed. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made over Nakau in view of Keller and further in view of Dutter for the reasons set forth above.
9). Regarding Nakau in view of Keller, Applicant primarily argues:
“Keller does not teach the specific combination of green and orange emitting photoluminescent pigment particles. Additionally, Keller teaches that the salts have been found to exhibit thermal resistance at the printing temperatures (paragraph [0020]). Thus, the skilled artisan would not be led to replace Keller's rare earth salts with Applicant's green and orange emitting photoluminescent pigment particles.”
Remarks, page 7.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because based on the evidence provided by Dutter, it appears as though the salts of Keller, depending on the selected rare-earth dopant and concentration thereof, would emit orange and green as presently claimed. Therefore, those skilled in the art would not need “replace” Keller's rare earth salts to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, Examiner maintains that selection of the specific color-emitting photoluminescent pigments is within the ordinary skill of those skilled in the art. There is no evidence of record showing the criticality of the claimed color combination. Because such color combinations fall within the general teachings of Nakau in view of Keller, Examiner maintains that selection of the claimed pigment mixtures is an obvious modification, based on the desired spectral characteristics of the final 3-D product, absent a showing otherwise.
Therefore, Applicant’s Remarks have been fully considered, but are not deemed persuasive.
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 CAROLINE D LIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-1836. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/CDL/Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/PAMELA H WEISS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights