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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted that the present application has at least two (2) related foreign filings or publications in other countries. Applicant is reminded of the duty under 37 CFR 1.56(a) to disclose information material to patentability, such as (a) Office Actions and prior art related to the claimed invention which have been cited during prosecution of related filings, (b) prior foreign or domestic filings by Applicant(s) which are related to the claimed or disclosed invention and which constitute prior art, (c) related brochures, dissertations, or other research publications, including that which has been authored by one or more inventors listed under this application or by other individuals under which or along which one or more inventors may have been working, and (d) any other relevant prior art Applicant may be aware of, including since the filing of any previous information disclosure statement (IDS).
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 09 February 2026 is acknowledged.
Election/Restrictions
The election without traverse of Group II and Species A1 and B1, identified as corresponding to claims 6-15, in the reply filed on 09 February 2026 is acknowledged, thereby leaving claims 1-5 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
Figures 1-5 should each be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated as evidenced by the specification at 25:10-17. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The second instance of “polyamide” in claim 12 (line 2, between “aluminum-filled metal” and “glass-filled polyamide”) should be deleted.
Absent persuasive argument contesting this issue, appropriate correction by amendment is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In particular:
The claim 6 recitation of a surface treatment method that “uses” a plastic blasting agent etc., is considered indefinite for the same or similar reasons set forth under MPEP § 2173.05(q), in particular since the surface treatment method is claimed without setting forth any steps involved therein. It is unclear exactly how the instant claimed blasting agent and foreign particle are “used”.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear at line 3 of claim 3 exactly what “comprises” the at least one particle PA1, etc., in particular whether this refers back to the previously recited surface treatment (i.e. whereby the surface treatment uses plastic blasting agent A and comprises the at least one particle), or to the previously recited blasting agent (i.e. whereby the blasting agent comprises the at least one particle).
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear whether the claim 6 recitation of “and at least one foreign particle FA1” is being recited in addition to the previously recited plastic blasting agent (i.e. whereby the surface treatment uses the blasting agent “and” the at least one foreign particle), or in addition to the previously recited at least one particle PA1 (i.e. whereby the blasting agent comprises at least one particle PA1 “and” at least one foreign particle FA1).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 11 recites numerous broad and narrower statements together, which respectively include at least the recited “resins” in addition to all other recited polymers (all of which could arguably be construed as “resins”), polyvinyls in addition to polyvinyl chlorides (which are a type of polyvinyl), and metals in addition to passivated metals, iron, and steel (all of which are metals). Notably also, at least some polyolefins, polyurethanes, and silicones are believed to include rubbers of such materials, in turn covering a narrower scope of materials than the broader claimed recitation of “rubbers”. Similarly, at least some paint particles are believed to include metals, minerals, and ceramics, in turn covering a narrower scope of material than these broader claimed recitations.
The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The claim 12 line 2 recitation of the component being produced by an additive manufacturing “or” printing method conflicts with the scope of claim 6, which is directed strictly to additive manufacturing. It is unclear how to interpret these conflicting recitations, and/or exactly how the claim 12 “printing method” differs from the additive manufacturing recited by claims 6 and 12.
The claim 12 recitation of numerous materials followed by “copolymers thereof” is confusing on account of the previously recited aluminum-filled metal not being copolymerizable with any other material claimed.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear if or exactly how the claim 14 at least one particle PA1, polymer KA1, and foreign particle FA1 correspond to those first recited in claim 6.
Absent persuasive argument contesting these issues, appropriate correction by amendment is required.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) 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. In particular:
The claim 12 line 2 recitation of the component being produced by an additive manufacturing “or” printing method conflicts with the scope of claim 6, which is directed strictly to additive manufacturing.
Absent persuasive argument contesting these issues, appropriate correction by amendment is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Rejection 1
Claims 6-11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 and/or 2) as anticipated by Redaelli (either as US 2021/0394330 or the equivalent WO 2020/233846 made of record via IDS on 27 July 2023, the former of which is cited herein), or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Redaelli, and further in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 4,575,396).
As to claim 6, Redaelli teaches a surface treatment method for an additively manufactured component ([0011], [0031], etc.), whereby a plastic blasting agent is disclosed (see at least [0031]) in addition to a polymer particle (see the [0020] binder(s)) and at least one foreign particle ([0020] abrasive or additional component, see also [0021]-[0027] as relevant).
In the alternative that it is ultimately determined that the claimed at least one particle and foreign particle should be construed as components of the claimed blasting agent (see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection (b) above), then Redaelli’s [0019]-[0027] media would not correspond to a blasting agent on account of their explicit direction to a vibratory finishing media as compared to the [0030] blasting media. However, Matsumoto provides a prior disclosure whereby media which resembles Redaelli’s vibratory finishing media is in fact utilized explicitly as blasting media (see the abstract and fig. 3 media 10 comprising glass 11 (foreign particle FA1) covered in plastic 12 (plastic particle PA1 formed from polymer KA1)). Like Redaelli’s vibratory finishing and blasting media which are applied to an additively manufactured (i.e. molded) article that may be formed from polymeric material, Matsumoto establishes use of said media similarly for treating an article comprising molded polymeric material (6:3-19). Further, Matsumoto’s glass 11 not only provides a same or similar function as Redaelli’s additional [0020] component in yielding a desired density for the media, but also provides a further benefit in permitting uniform blasting without damaging the article surface (Matsumoto abstract). Still further, Matsumoto identifies explicit benefits of the disclosed media over other blasting media which include one or more of those set forth by Redaelli (see Matsumoto’s 2:3-62 discussion pertaining to drawbacks of blasting media such as corn cob, walnut shell, and synthetic resin particles, which respectively correspond at least in part to Redaelli’s [0030] vegetable grit, walnut shell grit, and plastic/polymer media/grit/powder). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the above teachings from Matsumoto into Redaelli, in particular as providing motivation to substitute either Redaelli’s [0020]-[0027] vibratory finishing media or Matsumoto’s fig. 3 media for Redaelli’s [0030] blasting media, or otherwise to incorporate Redaelli’s [0020]-[0027] vibratory finishing media or Matsumoto’s fig. 3 media into Redaelli’s blasting media, including for example to achieve or facilitate the above-cited balance recognized explicitly by Matsumoto between media density, blasting performance, and article damage.
The above Redaelli method further comprises at least one of the claim 7 techniques ([0014]-[0016], etc.), with either Redaelli or Matsumoto providing a surface treatment meeting one or more of those of claim 8 in addition to one or more polymer materials falling into the remarkably broad claim 10 hardness range, with such material in addition to that of the above-cited foreign particle meeting one or more of those of claims 11 and 15, and with a density believed to fall into the remarkably broad claim 13 range. See at least the above citations taken from these references, in addition to relevant passages of EP 2127809 as cited by Redaelli at [0019], as relevant to these dependent claims. It is noted that the claim 14 composition is believed to either be met by Redaelli’s [0020] media (as set forth by EP 2127809 for example at [0020]-[0023], etc.) or could have been reached by one of ordinary skill in the art seeking an optimal balance between media density and blasting performance while reducing damage of the treated article, performable in accordance with MPEP § 2144.05(II) based on respective teachings pertaining thereto as set forth by the above combination of Matsumoto with Redaelli.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redaelli (or Redaelli in view of Matsumoto) as applied to at least claim 6, and further in view of Kramer et al. (DE 102019113200, made of record 27 July 2023 via IDS, machine translation provided herewith cited herein).
Redaelli refers generally to polymeric or metallic additive materials [0009], disclosing PEEK as one exemplary such material [0010], but is not believed to explicitly disclose one of the claim 12 polyamide, polyurethane, or metal materials for the additive manufacturing thereof. However, Kramer teaches a method also in which an additively manufactured article is subjected to surface treatment for example via blasting (machine translation abstract, pp. 10-11), in particular whereby exemplary additive materials include one or more of those claimed among a selection which also includes those disclosed by Redaelli (machine translation p. 13). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the above teachings from Kramer into (modified) Redaelli as providing art-recognized suitable and/or interchangeable materials for Redaelli’s additively manufactured article.
Rejection 2
It is noted that while not outlined herein for the sake of brevity, a rejection is also applicable over a number of additional references of record or hereby added to the record which likewise anticipate, or render obvious, one or more of the pending claims. For example:
A reference such as the above-cited Matsumoto patent, recognized for disclosing surface treatment of a molded article with blasting media which comprises a polymer and foreign particle but which does not specify the molded article being formed via additive manufacturing, could be combined with references such as the above-cited Redaelli or Kramer publications for their respective disclosures of a molded article formable via additive manufacturing, so as to render obvious at least instant claim 6.
This potential combination of references should be addressed in reply to this Office action via amendment and/or remarks.
Related Prior Art
See at least the abstract and figures of the additional prior art hereby made of record, which additional prior art is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be relied upon in subsequent rejections against claimed subject matter. Note, for example:
US 2023/0271301 is recognized for disclosing a blasting abrasive including a particle of hot melt resin with abrasive grains firmly fixed thereto.
US 7,052,362 is recognized for disclosing a blasting media comprised of distinct particle types, comprising a core coated with a desired abrasive, absorptive, or polishing component.
US 5,373,047 is recognized for disclosing a blasting medium of polymer granulate filled with divided metal.
The manner in which such prior art might apply to the claimed and/or disclosed invention should be considered prior to a formal response being filed to this Office action.
Interview Request
Applicant’s Representative is encouraged to contact the Examiner upon review of the instant Office action so as to discuss the claimed invention, the above prior art rejection and other applicable prior art, and how it is believed that the crux of the claimed and disclosed invention distinguishes over the prior art as a whole, particularly if it is believed that such a discussion will help to advance prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atul P. Khare whose telephone number is (571)270-7608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Christina A. Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/Atul P. Khare/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights