DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 07/11/2025, claims 1 and 3-10 are pending. Claim 1 is currently amended. Claim 2 is canceled, and claim 10 is newly added. Claims 5-9 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 3-4, and 10 are considered in this Office Action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the limitation “water-soluble organic solvent” in lines 10-11. The limitation would be interpreted as a liquid that is not reactive in the resin composition as recited in claim 1. Thus, “water-soluble organic solvent” would be interpreted at least as being different from “a reactive monomer” (claim 1 line 3) or “a water-soluble polymer” (claim 1 line 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the resin composition does not contain a substantial amount of water-soluble organic solvent” in lines 10-11. Instant Specification does not support that the negative limitation that excludes a substantial amount of water-soluble organic solvent from the resin composition as recited in claim 1 as follows:
Applicant stated that the limitation is supported by the disclosure as [0003] (as published) states “Patent Literature 1 and Patent Literature 2 disclose resin compositions containing a reactive monomer and a water-soluble polymer. However, these compositions are each intended to be used as a support material to be fabricated together with a modeling material and therefore contain a large amount of water-soluble organic solvent.” - i.e., the Applicant addressed a problem of prior art having a large amount of water-soluble organic solvent. The problem of prior art does not necessarily support that instant resin composition is the opposite or different from it.
Examples 1-9 of Table 1 ([0088], Table 1, as published) is not clear whether each composition has no other components added therein or not as the sum of total numbers are more than 100 (i.e., 103 in total including PI).
Even if assuming that Examples 1-9 present all components and a relative ratio of each component (i.e., without any water-soluble organic solvent), the very specific examples do not necessarily support the negative limitation as recited in claim 1 because the breath of claim 1 is much broader than the examples 1-9 in various aspects such as (1) transitional word “comprising” which does not limit existence of any other components, (2) types of the recited components, (3) ratios of the recited components, (4) meaning of “a substantial amount” (does it only mean “zero”?).
Therefore, it would not be reasonable for the one of ordinary skill to read the instant disclosure as being supportive for the negative limitation excluding any amount of water-soluble organic solvent from the resin composition as recited in claim 1.
Claims 3-4, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as being dependent from claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the resin composition comprises one or more reactive monomers” in line 2. Instant Specification does not support that the resin composition comprises more than one reactive monomers – e.g., see Instant Specification: [0007] on pages 3-4; Examples 1-9 in Table 1 on page 21. Contrary to the Applicant’s assertion, no resin composition comprising more than one reactive monomers is described in Instant Specification except Comparative Examples 2-3 presented poor water solubility. Moreover, one of the reactive monomers of Comparative Examples 2-3 (i.e., 4EG-A or 9EG-A) does not meet the limitation “being the reactive monomer whose homopolymer has a glass transition temperature of 80 °C or higher. Thus, the limitation is a new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a substantial amount of water-soluble organic solvent” in lines 1-11. The underlined term “substantial” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantial amount” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, the limitation would be interpreted as any values of amount in the resin composition.
Claims 3-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent from claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “one or more reactive monomers” in line 2. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear (1) whether the limitation includes “a reactive monomer” (claim 1 line 3), or (2) whether the limitation means another new one or more reactive monomers. For the purpose of examination, either of these interpretations would read on the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the reactive monomer” in line 3. It is unclear whether the limitation means the same as (1) “a reactive monomer” (claim 1 line 3), (2) “a reactive monomer” (claim 1 line 12), or (3) a reactive monomer of “one or more reactive monomers” (claim 10 line 2). For the purpose of examination, either of these interpretations would read on the claim.
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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 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.
(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 1, 3-4, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ito (WO 2021132699 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Ito teaches a resin composition (A) for three-dimensional photofabrication (abstract: an energy ray-curable coating material for three-dimensional shaped articles that provides excellent toughness in the cured product), comprising:
a reactive monomer ([0013-0019]: a monofunctional polymerizable compound (a1), as long as its polymer has a glass transition temperature 60 °C or more);
a water-soluble polymer ([0029, 0032, 0036-0037]: a polyfunctional polymerizable compound (b)); and
a photopolymerization initiator ([0054-0056]),
wherein the resin composition does not contain a substantial amount of water-soluble organic solvent ([0098]: solvent as an “optional” element; on the other hand, [0081]: solvent; also, of note, any amount of the solvent may not be a substantial amount, see above, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 1),
wherein the reactive monomer is a reactive monomer whose homopolymer has a glass transition temperature of 80 °C or higher ([0017]: a monofunctional polymerizable compound (a1), as long as its polymer has a glass transition temperature 80 °C or more and 250 °C or less), and
wherein the water-soluble polymer is a polymer selected from the group consisting of polyalkylene glycols, polyvinyl alcohol, modified polyvinyl alcohols, polyester, hydroxymethyl cellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, polyvinylpyrrolidone, vinylpyrrolidone-vinylimidazole copolymers, water-soluble alkyd resin, salts of copolymers derived from (meth)acrylic acid, and water-soluble polymers containing an ethylenic double bond in a side chain ([0036-0039]: polyester; [0032]: polyethylene glycol di(meth)acrylate; [0043]: polyethylene glycol).
Ito is silent that (1) a 1-mm-thick cured product of the resin composition exhibiting a remaining thickness of 0.7 mm or smaller after 5-hour immersion in water that is at room temperature, (2) a cured product of the resin composition has a main tangent δ peak temperature of 80 °C or higher, and (3) and a cured product of the resin composition has a Shore D hardness of 60 or higher.
In this case, Ito’s composition comprises the same components as recited in claim 1. Therefore, a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness is established to the claimed property (i.e., a water solubility, a main tangent δ peak temperature, and a Shore D hardness) of a cured product of the composition by Ito. See MPEP 2112.01 I. (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; "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 4, Ito teaches the resin composition according to claim 1, wherein a divalent metal salt of a carboxylic acid containing a polymerizable functional group ([0018]: zinc salt of N-(meth)acrylic acid or (meth)acrylic acid).
Regarding claim 10, Ito teaches resin composition for three-dimensional photofabrication according to claim 1, wherein the resin composition comprises one or more reactive monomers, and all of the one or more reactive monomers in the resin composition being the reactive monomer whose homopolymer has a glass transition temperature of 80°C or higher ([0017]: a monofunctional polymerizable compound (a1), as long as its polymer has a glass transition temperature 80 °C or more and 250 °C or less).
Claims 1, 3, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ota (WO 2019176139 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Ota teaches a resin composition for three-dimensional photofabrication (abstract: a model material composition), comprising:
a reactive monomer ([0111]: e.g., acryloyl morpholine (ACMO), dimethylacrylamide (DMAA));
a water-soluble polymer ([0111]: e.g., polyester acrylate oligomer (CN2203)); and
a photopolymerization initiator ([0101]: photoinitiator),
wherein the resin composition does not contain a substantial amount of water-soluble organic solvent ([0124-0127]: e.g., listed Examples),
wherein the reactive monomer is a reactive monomer whose homopolymer has a glass transition temperature of 80 °C or higher ([0111]: a homopolymer of acryloyl morpholine (ACMO), having 144 °C of Tg, a homopolymer of dimethylacrylamide (DMAA), having 119 °C of Tg 1), and
wherein the water-soluble polymer is a polymer selected from the group consisting of polyalkylene glycols, polyvinyl alcohol, modified polyvinyl alcohols, polyester, hydroxymethyl cellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, polyvinylpyrrolidone, vinylpyrrolidone-vinylimidazole copolymers, water-soluble alkyd resin, salts of copolymers derived from (meth)acrylic acid, and water-soluble polymers containing an ethylenic double bond in a side chain ([0111]: e.g., polyester acrylate oligomer (CN2203)).
Ota also teaches that a cured product of the resin composition has a shore D hardness of 60 more higher ([0108]).
Ota is silent that (1) a 1-mm-thick cured product of the resin composition exhibiting a remaining thickness of 0.7 mm or smaller after 5-hour immersion in water that is at room temperature, and (2) a cured product of the resin composition has a main tangent δ peak temperature of 80 °C or higher.
In this case, Ota’s composition comprises the same components as recited in claim 1. Therefore, a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness is established to the claimed property (i.e., a water solubility and a main tangent δ peak temperature) of a cured product of the composition by Ota. See MPEP 2112.01 I. (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; "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 10, Ota teaches resin composition for three-dimensional photofabrication according to claim 1, wherein the resin composition comprises one or more reactive monomers, and all of the one or more reactive monomers in the resin composition being the reactive monomer whose homopolymer has a glass transition temperature of 80°C or higher ([0111]: a homopolymer of acryloyl morpholine (ACMO), having 144 °C of Tg, a homopolymer of dimethylacrylamide (DMAA), having 119 °C of Tg 2).
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 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 1, 3, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishimaru (JP 2020012052A).
Ishimaru teaches a resin composition for three-dimensional photofabrication (claims 1, 5, 11, 12), comprising:
a reactive monomer (claims 1, 5, 11, 12: a water-soluble monomer (B); [0029-0032], [0064]);
a water-soluble polymer (claims 1, 5, 11, 12: a water-soluble polymer (A); [0014, 0025]: water-soluble polymer (A) obtained by polymerizing unsaturated compounds (a); [0017-0024]: various unsaturated compounds (a); [0059]: Water-soluble polymer A1-A7); and
a photopolymerization initiator (claim 12, [0039-0040]),
wherein the resin composition does not contain a substantial amount of water-soluble organic solvent (claims 1 and 5: the resin composition does not require any water-soluble organic solvent; on the other hand, claims 1, 8, 11, 12: 5 to 50 mass % of water-soluble organic solvent; of note, the disclosed amount of the solvent may not satisfy “a substantial amount” as recited, see above, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 1),
wherein the reactive monomer is a reactive monomer whose homopolymer has a glass transition temperature of 80 °C or higher ([0032, 0064]: for example, acryloyl morpholine (ACMO), wherein Tg of the homopolymer is 144 °C3), and
wherein the water-soluble polymer is a polymer selected from the group consisting of polyalkylene glycols ([0017,0018]: e.g., by polymerization of polyalkylene glycol (meth)acrylates), polyvinyl alcohol, modified polyvinyl alcohols ([0017, 0020]: by polymerization of a monomer having a vinyl group), polyester, hydroxymethyl cellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, polyvinylpyrrolidone ([0017, 0021]: by polymerization of a monomer having an allyl group such as N-allylpyrrolidone), vinylpyrrolidone-vinylimidazole copolymers ([0017, 0021, 0022]: by polymerization of a monomer having an allyl group and a monomer having a maleimide group), water-soluble alkyd resin ([0017, 0023]: by polymerization of unsaturated compound (a) having a carboxylate), salts of copolymers derived from (meth)acrylic acid ([0017-0018]: by polymerization of a monomer having a (meth)acrylate group), and water-soluble polymers containing an ethylenic double bond in a side chain.
Ishimaru is silent that a cured product of the resin composition having a main tan δ peak temperature of 80° C or higher, and a 1-mm-thick cured product of the resin composition exhibiting a remaining thickness of 0.7 mm or smaller after 5-hour immersion in water that is at room temperature.
However, in one embodiment of Example 14, the resin composition E14 comprises 50 wt. % of the reactive monomer (B1: ACMO), 10 wt. % of the water-soluble polymer (A-7: a homopolymer of N-vinylpyrrolidone), and 1 wt.% of the photopolymerization initiator (D-2) ([0059, 0067], Table 1). Also, it is known that a tangent δ peak temperature of a material corresponds to a glass transition temperature (Tg) of the material.4 Therefore, it would have been obvious that a cured product of the resin composition would have a main Tg which is similar to the Tg of the main components – the homopolymer of ACMO, having Tg of 144 °C and polyvinylpyrrolidone having Tg of 120 °C5, such that the main Tg would be at least higher than 120 °C and lower than 144 °C. Thus, Ishimaru teaches or suggests that the cured product of the resin composition has a main tangent δ peak temperature of 80 °C or higher.
Moreover, the cured product of 1 g of the resin composition E14 made in contact with 1 g of a model material is dissolved or dispersed in water at room temperature and removed in less than 1 hour ([0069-0070], Table 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a 1 mm-thick cured product the resin composition (e.g., E14) would be dissolved and removed so as a remaining thickness to be 0.7 mm or smaller after 5-hour immersion in water at room temperature.
Regarding claim 3, Ishimaru is silent that a cured product of the resin composition has a Shore D hardness of 60 or higher. In this case, Ishimaru’s composition comprises the same components as recited in claim 1. Therefore, a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness is established to the claimed property (i.e., a Shore D hardness) by Ishimaru. See MPEP 2112.01 I. (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; "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 10, Ishimaru teaches resin composition for three-dimensional photofabrication according to claim 1, wherein the resin composition comprises one or more reactive monomers, and all of the one or more reactive monomers in the resin composition being the reactive monomer whose homopolymer has a glass transition temperature of 80°C or higher ([0032, 0064]: for example, acryloyl morpholine (ACMO), wherein Tg of the homopolymer is 144 °C6).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishimaru (JP 2020012052A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mizoguchi (US 20210047530 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Ishimaru teaches the resin composition according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach that a divalent metal salt of a carboxylic acid containing a polymerizable functional group.
Mizoguchi teaches a photocurable composition for a support material for an inkjet 3D printer, comprising water-soluble ethylenically unsaturated monomers containing an ionic group and a counter ion (abstract). The photocurable composition for support materials comprises a divalent metal salt of a carboxylic acid containing a polymerizable functional group ([0030-0032]: e.g., Zn/Mg/Ca salts of the carboxylic acid containing a polymerizable group of acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, maleic acid, etc.; [0042]: by using zinc acrylate together, a cured product with higher strength can be obtained).
Both Ishimaru and Mizoguchi teach a resin composition for a support material of 3D printing (Ishimaru: [0001]; Mizoguchi: abstract), and the resin composition of Ishimaru comprises a water-soluble polymer (A) made of the unsaturated compound (a) selected from a metal carboxylate (Ishimaru: [0017, 0023]: e.g., Li/Na/K/Ca/Mg salts). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the resin composition to further comprise the polymerizable divalent metal carboxylic acid salt as taught by Mizoguchi in order to yield known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of obtaining a cured product of the resin composition as a support material for 3D printing with improved supportability (Mizoguchi: derived from [0016, 0032]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is noted that the applicants have modified the claim(s) with the latest amendment dated 07/11/2025, and the arguments are based on these changes.
The Applicant argues (see pages 4-7 of Remarks) that neither Ito, Ota, nor Ishimaru does teach or suggest that “a 1-mm-thick cured product of the resin composition exhibiting a remaining thickness of 0.7 mm or smaller after 5-hour immersion in water that is at room temperature” as recited in claim 1 lines 8-9.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument.
Ito, Ota, or Ishimaru does not explicitly disclose the dimension of a cured resin product and its remaining thickness upon exposure to water as recited. However, the limitation relates to the property (i.e., water solubility) of the cured resin product made from the resin composition as recited in claim 1. Thus, when the composition of the prior art comprises the same components as recited in claim 1, a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness is established to the claimed property of the cured product of the composition by Ito, Ota, or Ishimaru. See MPEP 2112.01 I. (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; "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Furthermore, the recited property does not necessarily require the cured resin product is completely soluble in water as the limitation could be interpreted as the remaining thickness can be up to 70 % after 5-hour immersion in water at room temperature. Thus, although the cured product of references has a polymerized portion that is generally known to be insoluble in water, it does not negate a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness. In summary, the claimed property would not be a reason for allowability unless the resin composition as recited has a distinguishable constituent from the ones of the references.
The Applicant argues (see page 6 of Remarks) that Ishimaru does not teach or suggest that “the resin composition does not contain a substantial amount of water-soluble organic solvent” as recited in claim 1 lines 10-11.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. The resin composition of Ishimaru does not always require the resin composition comprises a water-soluble organic solvent (Ishimaru: claims 1 and 5). Moreover, even when the resin composition comprises a water-soluble organic solvent (Ishimaru: claims 1, 8, 11, 12: 5 to 50 mass % of water-soluble organic solvent), the disclosed ratio of the solvent may not satisfy “a substantial amount” as recited. See above, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 1.
Thereby, after reconsideration, claim 1 remains rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kitou (US 20190009453 A1) teaches a resin composition for a modeling material and a supporting material (abstract, [0032-0059], [0138-0150], Tables 1 and 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INJA SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1605. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached on (571)270-5343. 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.
/INJA SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
1 See Instant Specification: [0075, 0077], respectively, as published.
2 See Instant Specification: [0075, 0077], respectively, as published.
3 See Instant Specification: [0075], as published.
4 See page 2, section for “GLASS TRANSITION FROM THE LOSS MODULUS AND TAN(δ).” This reference, “Measurement of Glass Transition Temperatures by Dynamic Mechanical Analysis and Rheology” is available at https://www.tainstruments.com/pdf/literature/RH100.pdf.
5 See Instant Specification, [0075, 0082], respectively, as published.
6 See Instant Specification: [0075], as published.