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 .
Response to Arguments
In the Office Action dated 20 February 2026, the Applicant submits the following.
--- New claims 18 – 22 have been added.
--- Claims 2 – 5 have been canceled.
--- Independent base claim 1 has been amended as follows: The previous Markush list limitation established on component (a) has been amended to consist of glycerol, diglycerol, triglycerol, tetraglycerol, polyglycerol, and their blends (Claim 1, lines 4-5).
--- No new matter has been identified.
The Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 20 February 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-9, 16 & 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the previous grounds of rejection in view of the amended claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is presented below.
The Applicant challenges the combination of prior art references of Saito et al. (US 2017/0283596 A1) & Schlichter et al. (US 2022/0186054 A1) and submits that a skilled artisan in view of Saito would not have been motivated to look towards Schlichter for analogous reinforcing agents preventing the flow and/or deformation of support materials in 3D printing applications. In other words, the skilled artisan would have had no reasonable expectation of success in preserving and/or improving mechanical properties of 3D printed articles by substituting cellulose fibers, an essential component of Saito's support composition, with the nanoclay of Schlichter's support composition (Remarks, p. 8, bottom paragraph).
The Applicant’s remaining arguments pertaining to the original combination of Saito & Schlichter are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented below.
The Applicant states their invention has achieved unexpected advantageous effects (Remarks, p. 9 & 10) and points to Tables 2-4 in the Specification for support.
Examiner notes the empirical data supplied by the Applicant, however, said data is not commensurate in scope with the claims and the Applicant has not provided an explanation regarding how the exemplified results could reasonably be extended to the full scope of the claims. Applicant must show unexpected results over the entire claimed ranged to support unexpected results for the entire range and generic structures. Whether unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. See MPEP § 716.02(d). Therefore, the examples are insufficient to establish nonobviousness of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 16 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et. al (US 2017/0283596 A1) in view of Lin et al. (CN 104310918 A; Machine Translated version referred to herein) and Vidavsky et al. (US 2022/0088884 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 16 & 17, converting components (a) – (e) of the present application into weight percent values results in the following allowable ranges for each component in the support material composition A:
Parts
Wt%
Component
Min
Max
Min
Max
a
100
100
27.0%
98.0%
b
1
50
0.3%
33.1%
c
1
100
0.4%
49.8%
d
0
100
0.0%
49.5%
e
0
20
0.0%
19.6%
Saito teaches support material containing (a) low molecular weight saccharides, polyvinyl alcohols, or polyalkylene glycols; (b) non-water-soluble cellulose fibers; and (c) water-soluble cellulose derivative (Abstract). Saito describes the cellulose fibers (b), as a non-water-soluble reinforcing material, preventing the flow of the support material (p. 3-4, [0045]). Water-soluble cellulose derivatives include hydroxyethyl cellulose (p. 5, [0070]). Saito discloses 9 examples of embodiments of their invention (p. 9-11, [0125]-[0143]). The table below summarizes the minimum and maximum parts by weight (bw) of each component, according to said disclosed examples:
Parts (bw)
Component
Min
Max
a
100
100
b
17.6
17.7
c
0
29.4
water
70.4
70.6
Saito, however, does not teach a similar composition comprising a nanoclay and a glycerol as required by the claims.
In the same field of endeavor, Lin teaches compositions and preparation methods for manufacturing articles thereof via 3D printing (Abstract). Lin attributes thixotropic properties to the composition by inclusion of hydroxyethyl cellulose ether or organobentonite (p. 15, [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the hydroxyethyl cellulose (i.e., component (c)) in Saito’s composition with the bentonite (i.e., thixotropic agent) in Lin’s invention, as hydroxyethyl cellulose ether and organobentonite are recognized by the prior art as equivalents suitable for use in the same capacity & for the same purpose.
Modification of Saito in view of Lin as detailed above results in a support material for 3D printing, reading on limitations for components (b)-(e) established by claim 1, however, neither Saito nor Lin teach the glycerol component as required by the claims.
In the same field of endeavor, Vidavsky teaches support materials for additive manufacturing and processes/methods of fabricating three-dimensional objects employing said support materials (Abstract). The support material comprises a plurality of hydrophilic groups. Suitable polymeric materials imparting said hydrophilic groups are polyols (p. 11, [0247]). Vidavsky teaches preferable polyols are polyglycerol, polypropylene glycol and Polyol 3165 (p. 23, Claim 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the polypropylene glycol in Saito’s invention with the preferable polyol taught by Vidavsky (i.e., polyglycerol), as Vidavsky recognizes these as equivalents suitable for use in the same purpose, and further demonstrates polyols of this nature are suitable for use in support materials in 3D printing applications.
Modification of Saito in view of Lin and Vidavsky results in a support material for 3D printing, comprising 100 parts of (a) polyglycerol, ~17.65 parts of (b) cellulose fibers; ~70.5 parts water; and 0 – 29.4 parts (c) bentonite. These values all fall within the claimed ranges of their respective components in the instant application. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is prima facie to select a known material based on its suitability for an intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Modification of Saito in view of Lin and Vidavsky as detailed above reads on limitations established by claims 1, 16 & 17.
Regarding claim 6, maintaining the modification of Saito in view of Lin and Vidavsky previously detailed, said modification allows for a substantially identical support material composition to that which is claimed in the present application. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Regarding claim 7, maintaining the modification of Saito in view of Lin and Vidavsky previously detailed, said modification substituted hydroxyethyl cellulose (i.e., component (c)) in Saito’s composition with the bentonite (i.e., thixotropic agent) of Lin’s invention. It is prima facie to select a known material based on its suitability for an intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 9, maintaining the modification of Saito in view of Lin and Vidavsky previously detailed, the inventor of the present application provides examples of rheology additives suitable for use in their invention in the specification, citing among them cellulose and carboxymethyl cellulose as suitable polymers for use in this capacity (p. 9, lines 1-7). Saito’s composition comprises cellulose fibers as well as carboxymethyl cellulose (p. 13, claims 1 & 3). Vidavsky teaches their inventive formulation may further comprise active agents such as an initiator, inhibitor, stabilizer (p. 3, [0063]) and also teaches the inclusion of a surfactant (p. 12, [0294]). It is prima facie to select a known material based on its suitability for an intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et. al (US 2017/0283596 A1) in view of Lin et al. (CN 104310918 A; Machine Translated version referred to herein) and Vidavsky et al. (US 2022/0088884 A1) in further view of Shpayzer et al. (US 2020/0338834 A1).
Regarding claim 18, maintaining the modification of Saito in view of Lin and Vidavsky previously detailed, neither Saito, Lin nor Vidavsky teach the inclusion of glycerol as required by the claims.
In the same field of endeavor, Shpayzer teaches formulations usable as support material in additive manufacturing processes such as 3D printing. Said formulations comprise a non-curable material (Abstract). The non-curable material may be Polyol 3165, polypropylene glycol, polyglycerol, or glycerol (p. 10, [0203], [0205]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the polyglycerol (component (a)) in Saito’s invention with the glycerol in Shpayzer’s invention, as polyglycerol and glycerol are recognized by the prior art as equivalents suitable for use in the same capacity & for the same purpose.
Modification of Saito in view of Lin and Vidavsky in further view of Shpayzer reads on all limitations established by claim 18. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is prima facie to select a known material based on its suitability for an intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claims 8 & 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et. al (US 2017/0283596 A1) in view of Lin et al. (CN 104310918 A; Machine Translated version referred to herein) and Vidavsky et al. (US 2022/0088884 A1) in further view of Schlichter et al. (US 2022/0186054 A1).
Regarding claim 8, maintaining the modification of Saito in view of Lin and Vidavsky previously detailed, neither Saito nor Lin nor Vidavsky teach their respective inventions comprising smectite as required by the claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Schlichter teaches a support material for additive manufacturing purposes (Abstract) comprising nanoclay (p. 4, [0083], [0084]). The nanoclay may be selected from the group consisting of smectites, bentonites and mixtures thereof (p. 4, [0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the bentonite in the modification of Saito in view of Lin & Vidavsky with smectite, as Schlichter teaches their equivalence and suitability for use in the same capacity in similar compositions for similar end uses. This is further supported by the express disclosure from Schlichter that said nanoclay consists of smectites, bentonites or mixtures thereof. It is prima facie to select a known material based on its suitability for an intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Modification of Saito in view of Lin & Vidavsky in further view of Schlichter reads on limitations established by claim 8.
Regarding claims 19-22, maintaining the modification of Saito in view of Lin and Vidavsky, in further view of Schlichter previously detailed, Schlichter teaches presence and use of polysaccharides (cellulose, xanthan gum, guar gum and alginates), cellulose ethers (carboxymethyl cellulose), polymers based on acrylic acid, poloxamers, polyethylene oxide and mixtures thereof (p. 5, [0127]). For the hydrosoluble or hydrodispersible polymer, the polysaccharide is preferably selected from cellulose, xanthan gum, guar gum and alginates. The cellulose ether is preferably carboxymethyl cellulose. The hydrosoluble or hydrodispersible polymer is preferably a poloxamer (p. 5, [0131]). It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAAN ROELOFSE whose telephone number is (571)272-2825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Jones can be reached at (571)270-7733. 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.
/CHRISTIAAN ROELOFSE/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762