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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 11-13 and 16-25) and Species b) (wherein the fusing composition includes a colorant; claims 16, 18, 23 and 25) in the reply filed on 10/27/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is primarily on the grounds that no undue burden has been established.
Regarding the restriction requirement, Applicant specifically argues that on page 3 of the restriction requirement, the Office states that "the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification." Applicant submits that the Office has provided no explanation for why the claims of Groups I and II would fall into different classifications.
Examiner notes, “Patents need not be cited to show separate classification.” MPEP 808.02(A). The inventions are separately classified as identified on page 2 of the Restriction requirement mailed 08/26/2025, and Applicant has not provided evidence or reasoning why the groups would not fall into the different identified classifications.
Applicant further argues the Office does not show (such as by citing appropriate prior art or other evidence) that there is a separate status in the art (see MPEP § 808.02(B)). Examiner notes MPEP § 808.02(B) states a separate status in the art must be shown “when they are classifiable together” (emphasis added). As explained above, the groups are not classifiable together.
Further, the Office states that "the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries)." However, the Office did not indicate what the specific search queries, electronic resources, or classes/subclasses would be (see MPEP § 808.02(C)). As stated above, separate classes/subclasses are identified on page 2 of the Restriction requirement mailed 08/26/2025. Further, separate search queries are apparent from the Groups as identified, i.e., a “3-D printed part” and a “3-dimensional print material set” would require different search terms than a “method of analyzing a composition.” Patents need not be cited to show different fields of search (see MPEP § 808.02(C)).
Regarding the election of species, Applicant respectfully submits that the Office did not identify the specific classes or subclasses, the specific electronic resources, and the specific search queries that would be required if all of the species are examined together. Further, the Office has not shown that prior art applicable to one species would not be applicable to another one of the species.
This is not found persuasive because “should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case.” MPEP 8.01. Further, claims 17-18 and 22-23, are evidence that the species are independent and distinct, and are therefore properly restrictable.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14-15, 17 and 22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/27/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-12, 16 and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, line 4, the term "the first luminescent agent" should be amended to read "the first photoluminescent agent" in order to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claims.
In claims 12, 16 and 18-20, line 1, it is suggested the term “The part” be amended to read “The 3-D printed part” in order to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), 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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 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.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 24 claims “wherein the fusing agent is capable of absorbing electromagnetic radiation to produce heat.” However, claim 13, from which claim 24 depends, claims a fusing composition comprising a “fusing agent capable of absorbing electromagnetic radiation to produce heat.” Therefore, claim 24 does not further limit claim 13.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al, CN 106543661A (Wang).
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of Wang. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refer to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 11, Wang discloses as a color-changing 3D printing material comprising a transparent polymer material, a temperature-sensitive toner, a UV discoloration powder, a luminous powder (a first photoluminescent material) and a fluorescent powder (a second photoluminescent material) (Wang; page 2, lines 15-25). The transparent polymer is one or more of polylactic acid, polycarbonate, polyester, polyacrylate, polystyrene and polyolefin (i.e., thermoplastic polymers) (Wang, page 2, lines 27-28).
Wand exemplifies 3-D printing materials comprising PLA (i.e., the thermoplastic polymer polylactic acid), a luminous power (i.e., a first photoluminescent material) and a fluorescent/phosphor agent (i.e., a second photoluminescent material) (Wang; page 4, Examples 1-3, lines 22-41). The compositions are used to make 3-D printed molds/models/blocks, i.e., 3-D printed parts as claimed (Wang; see Abstract; page 3, lines 44-54; and page 4, lines 27, 34 and 41).
Because the 3d-printed parts of Wang comprise a thermoplastic polymer, a first photoluminescent agent and a second photoluminescent agent, the 3D printed parts of Wang inherently have a spectral signature characteristic of the presence of the first photoluminescent agent and the second photoluminescent agent in combination as claimed.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller, US 2016/0347005 A1 (Miller).
Regarding claim 11, Miller teaches technology for controlling the fabrication of a 3D printed article during 3D printing of a polymeric material, wherein the polymer material is doped with one or more fluorescent molecules (Miller; Abstract). The polymer material may be, for example, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) (i.e., a thermoplastic polymer) (Miller; [0025]). The fluorescent molecules may have one or more emission bands on the same molecule or different molecules (Miller; [0026]). In one example, the polymer material may be doped with two or more fluorophores, such as 1,3-bis(1-pyrenyl)propane and pyrene. Each fluorophore may emit light at a different wavelength (Miller; [0028] and [0044]).
In Example 2, Miller discloses ABD doped with two fluorophores, such as 1,3-bis(1-pyrenyl)propane and pyrene. Each fluorophore may emit energy at different wavelengths. The doped ABS polymer is used to 3d print an article, wherein the wavelength of the fluorophores’ emissions may be used to map a color of the emitted light and subsequently map a temperature of the emission (i.e., a 3-D printed part comprising a thermoplastic polymer, and a first and second photoluminescent material, wherein the composition has a spectral signature characteristic of the presence of the first photoluminescent agent and the second photoluminescent agent in combination) (i.e., (Miller; [0083]).
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-13, 16, 18-19, 21 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hinch et al, WO 2017/188963 A1 (Hinch).
A copy of Hinch was provided with the IDS filed 03/29/2023.
Regarding claims 11-12, 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 (i.e., wherein the thermoplastic polymer composition comprises a fusing agent and a first photoluminescent agent dispersed in a thermoplastic polymer matrix), and 3) a masking feature including a third matrix of fusing agent and thermoplastic polymer powder (Hinch; [0012]). The photoluminescent agent can be a combination of photoluminescent agents that photoexcite at different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation to provide different photoluminescent intensities (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) (Hinch; [0029]).
Hinch exemplifies a 3-dimensional printing system used to print 3-D parts having a photoluminescent security feature encapsulated withing the body part beneath a surface layer. Photoluminescent inks and fusing inks were printed from separate inkjet pens. The photoluminescent inks included Ink#1 and Ink#3 each of which contains fluorescein (i.e., a first photoluminescent agent), and Ink#2 and Ink#, each of which contains Rhodmaine B (i.e., a second photoluminescent agent) (Hinch; [0081]). The fusing ink comprising carbon black, i.e., wherein the fusing agent is the colorant carbon black (Hinch; [0082]).
The inks were jetted into a bed of nylon particles. The photoluminescent ink was printed into a security area to form the security feature. The fusing ink was printed in both the security area and the non-security area. After a single pass of each ink for the photoluminescent composite area, a curing was performed (i.e., a 3-D printed part wherein the thermoplastic polymer composition comprises a fusing agent, the first photoluminescent agent and the second photoluminescent agent dispersed in a thermoplastic polymer matrix as claimed in claims 11-12) (Hinch; [0017] and [0083]).
The security features encapsulated within the 3-dimensional printed parts were visible under UV radiation (Hinch; [0086]).
Regarding claims 13, 19 and 24:
The Example of Hinch anticipates the 3-D print material sets as claimed in that the exemplified “set” comprises:
thermoplastic polymer particles (Hinch; [0083]);
fluorescein (a first photoluminescent agent) and Rhodamine B (a second photoluminescent agent), wherein the build composition has a spectral signature characteristic of the presence of the first photoluminescent agent and the second photoluminescent agent in combination;
and an inkjet fusing composition comprising carbon black, i.e., a fusing agent capable of absorbing electromagnetic radiation to produce heat (Hinch; [0035] and [0082]).
Hinch discloses that the fusing agent is capable of absorbing electromagnetic radiation to produce heat (claims 13, 19 and 24) (Hinch; [0035]).
Regarding claim 16 and 18, Hinch is relied upon as disclosing the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. Hinch discloses a 3-D printed part wherein fusing agent comprises the colorant carbon black (Hinch; [0082-0083]).
Regarding claim 21, Hinch is relied upon as disclosing 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% (Hinch; [0082]). 5 wt% falls within the claimed weight% range of 0.1-20 wt%.
Regarding claims 23 and 25, Hinch is relied upon as disclosing the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above. Hinch discloses a 3-dimensional print material set wherein fusing agent comprises the colorant carbon black (Hinch; [0082-0083]).
Claims 11-13, 16, 18-19, 21 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stasiak et al, WO 2017/188961 A1 (Stasiak).
A copy of Stasiak was provided with the IDS filed 03/29/2023.
Regarding claims 11-13, Stasiak discloses a photoluminescent material set (claim 13) for 3-D printing 3-dimensional parts (claim 11) (Stasiak; [0008]). The set comprises: 1) a thermoplastic polymer powder, 2) a photoluminescent ink, and 3) a fusing ink (Stasiak; [0010]). The photoluminescent ink can be used together with the fusing ink to form a 3-D printed part with photoluminescent features (Stasiak; [0009]).
The photoluminescent agent can include photoluminescent pigment, a photoluminescent dye, a quantum dot, and combinations thereof (Stasiak; [0028]).
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. A photoluminescent ink and fusing ink were printed from separate inkjet pens. Two photoluminescent inks were used, one of which contains fluorescein and one of which contains Rhodmaine B. The fusing ink comprises carbon black, i.e., wherein the fusing agent is the colorant carbon black (Stasiak; [0079]). The inks were jetted into a bed of nylon particles (Stasiak; [0080]).
The system of Stasiak anticipates the 3-D print material sets as claimed in that the exemplified “set” comprises:
thermoplastic nylon polymer particles;
fluorescein (a first photoluminescent agent) and Rhodamine B (a second photoluminescent agent), wherein the build composition has a spectral signature characteristic of the presence of the first photoluminescent agent and the second photoluminescent agent in combination;
and an inkjet fusing composition comprising carbon black.
Regarding claims 13, 19 and 24, Stasiak discloses that the fusing agent is capable of absorbing electromagnetic radiation to produce heat (Stasiak; [0016]).
Each layer was printed with one of the two photoluminescent inks in pre-designated areas. The carbon black fusing ink was printed in both the photoluminescent composite areas and other body portions. After a single pass, a curing was performed (Stasiak; [0080]). The photoluminescent composite layer includes a photoluminescent agent dispersed in a matrix of fused thermoplastic polymer powder (claims 11-12) (i.e., a 3-D printed part wherein the thermoplastic polymer composition comprises a fusing agent, the first photoluminescent agent and the second photoluminescent agent dispersed in a thermoplastic polymer matrix, wherein the composition has a spectral signature characteristic of the presence of the first luminescent agent and the second photoluminescent agent in combination).
Under UV light, the photoluminescent emission from the photoluminescent features became very prominent (Stasiak; [0082]).
See Examples 2 and 3 for 3-D printed parts and 3-D print material sets comprising combinations of different photoluminescent agents (Stasiak; [0083-0086]).
Regarding claim 16 and 18, Stasiak is relied upon as disclosing the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. Stasiak discloses a 3-D printed part wherein fusing agent comprises the colorant carbon black (Stasiak; [0079], [0083] and [0085]).
Regarding claim 21, Stasiak is relied upon as disclosing 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 claims 23 and 25, Stasiak is relied upon as disclosing the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above. Stasiak discloses a 3-dimensional print material set wherein fusing agent comprises the colorant carbon black (Stasiak; [0079], [0083] and [0085]).
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hinch or Stasiak.
The applied references have a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the references, the references constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding claim 20, Hinch is relied upon as disclosing the limitations of claim 19 as discussed above. Hinch teaches that the fusing agent 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 (Hinch; [0042]).
Regarding claim 20, Stasiak is relied upon as disclosing the limitations of claim 19 as discussed above. Stasiak teaches that the fusing agent 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 (Stasiak; [0023] and [0051]).
Given that both Hinch and Stasiak 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, which is both disclosed by Hinch and Stasiak and encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 11-13, 16, 18-21 and 23-25 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).
Regarding claims 11-13, 19 and 24, 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 (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, polyacetals, polyolefins, etc. (i.e., thermoplastic polymers) which are generally in powder form and made up of a plurality of particles (Nauka; [0038-0039]).
The build materials are used to make 3-D objects (claims 11-12) (Nauka; [0088]).
Nauka also teaches a three-dimensional object printing kit including the build material composition (i.e., polymeric powder) and a fusing agent (claims 12-13) (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 (claims 13, 19 and 24) (Nauka; [0022] and [0059]). The fusing agent composition can be an inkjet ink (Nauka; [0077]).
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 such as flow (Nauka; [0029] and [0046]).
Nauka does not explicitly teach a 3-D printed part or a 3-dimensional print material set comprising 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.
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 and 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).
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, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. 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.
Regarding claims 16, 18, 23 and 25, Nauka in view of Keller are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claims 12 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 19 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, 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rejections over these references would be cumulative to the above rejections.
Lee et al, US 2015/015082 A1, teaches fluorescent tracer compositions for water-soluble polymer compositions [0001]. Additives include silica, metal oxides, calcium carbonate, talc and mica [0074]. The compositions may be shaped into a container by 3D printing [0077].
Pforte et al, US 2015/0273757 A1, teaches that colorants and/or pigments having fluorescence and/or phosphorescence can be added to 3D printed parts comprising thermoplastic polymers, as information or security features (Pforte; [0060-0061], [0080], [0083], [0086], [0089], [0134], [0137-0140], and claims 24, 34-35 and 38).
Ritchie et al, WO 2015/112959 A1, teaches 3D print mediums and 3D printed parts comprising chemical taggants that can be detected using a chemical analyzer, such as a spectrometer, in one or more regions of the electromagnetic spectrum (page 3, para 1).
Chandler et al, US 6632526 B2, discloses polymeric beads dyed with two or more fluorescent dyes, wherein a distinct fluorescence signal is emitted from each dye (Abstract and claim 1). Chandler was cited in the IDS filed 03/29/2023.
Mercolino, US 2007/0012783 A1, discloses kits comprising polystyrene particles stained with fluorescent dyes at different intensity levels in order to provide product authentication [0091] and Examples 1-2. Mercolino was cited in the IDS filed 03/29/2023.
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
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732