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
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Rudisill teaches “at most, to post-cure the 3D object at a temperature that is below the melting point of the polymer used” but this is moot. The newly amended limitation is met by newly cited Feng in combination with Rudisill. Rudisill teaches post-curing at a temperature 170 °C, pg. 28, lines 14-15 for polyamide-12 having a melting point from about 175°C to about 200°C, pg. 7, lines 30-32. Feng teaches the polyamide-12 polymer coating can have a melting or softening point from about 160° C to about 200° C, [0009]. Feng teaches when an overhead heating source 176, e.g., heating lamps, are used to heat up the powder bed material to a printing temperature, the typical minimum increase in temperature for printing can be carried out quickly, e.g., up to about 160° C to 220° C in some example, [0046].
Regarding claim 12, Applicants arguments are moot for the same reasons given above.
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudisill (WO 2020/251541 A1), in view of Feng et al. (US 2019/0039295 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rudisill teaches a method of three-dimensional printing (methods of making three dimensional printed articles. FIG. 4 shows a flowchart, pg. 15, lines 28-30) comprising: iteratively applying individual build material layers of a build material (iteratively applying individual build material layers of polymer particles to a powder bed 410, pg. 15, lines 31-33) having a D50 particle size ranging from about 2 um to about 150 um; (average particle size can be from about 20 μm to about 50 μm, pg. 7, lines 26-28) based on a 3D object model, iteratively and selectively dispensing a fusing agent onto individual build material layers, (iteratively applying individual build material layers of polymer particles to a powder bed 410; based on a three-dimensional object model, selectively jetting a
fusing agent onto the individual build material layers, pg. 15, lines 31-33) wherein the fusing agent comprises water and a radiation absorber; (includes water, a radiation absorber, pg. 16, line 1) iteratively exposing a powder bed to energy to selectively fuse the thermoplastic elastomer particles in contact with the radiation absorber and form a fused polymer matrix at the individual build material layers resulting in a fused three-dimensional object; (exposing the
powder bed to radiation energy to selectively fuse the polymer particles in contact with the radiation absorber at individual build material layers and thereby form the
three-dimensional printed article 430, pg. 16, lines 3-7) and thermally treating the fused three-dimensional object for a time period ranging from about 5 minutes to about 48 hours, (after printing a three-dimensional printed article, the article was post-cured for 20 hours at 170 °C, pg. 28, lines 14-15, where the polymer powder can be polyamide 12, which can have a melting point from about 175°C to about 200°C, pg. 7, lines 30-32. However, Feng teaches the polyamide-12 polymer coating can have a melting or softening point from about 160° C to about 200° C, [0009]. Thus, the 170 °C overlaps with the known melting point range of polyamide-12)
Rudisill teaches post-curing the three-dimensional printed article in this way can increase the amount of crosslinking in the polymer, which can increase the strength of the article, pg. 20, lines 7-10. The further claimed “thereby enhancing the fusion between adjacent build material layers at an interior location of the three-dimensional object without structural deformation of the three-dimensional object” is presumed an inherent property of claimed materials and methods, see MPEP 2112.01.
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).
Rudisill does not explicitly teach including from about 95 wt% to 100 wt% of thermoplastic elastomer particles.
Rudisill teaches a weight ratio of thermoplastic polymer particles to filler particles can be from about 100: 1 to about 1:2, pg. 8, lines 20-22. Example 1: the various powders were mainly made up of polyamide 12 particles with small amounts of additives, pg. 25, lines 20-23.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to vary the amount of filler of Rudisill to meet the claimed 95 wt% to 100 wt% because Rudisill teaches it to be varied to achieve small amounts of additives, pg. 25, lines 20-23.
Rudisill does not explicitly teach temperature ranging from a melting point of the thermoplastic elastomer particles to the melting point +40°C. (Rudisill teaches after printing a three-dimensional printed article, the article was post-cured for 20 hours at 170 °C, pg. 28, lines 14-15, where the polymer powder can be polyamide 12, which can have a melting point from about 175°C to about 200°C, pg. 7, lines 30-32.
Feng teaches teach temperature ranging from a melting point of the thermoplastic elastomer particles to the melting point +40°C. (Feng teaches the polyamide-12 polymer coating can have a melting or softening point from about 160° C to about 200° C, [0009]. Feng teaches when an overhead heating source 176, e.g., heating lamps, are used to heat up the powder bed material to a printing temperature, the typical minimum increase in temperature for printing can be carried out quickly, e.g., up to about 160° C to 220° C in some example, [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to vary the post-cure temperature of polyamide-12 taught by Rudisill to be equal or greater than the melting point of polyamide-12 taught by Feng because it allows material fused together and increases the tensile modulus, see [0008].
Regarding claim 9, Rudisill teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the thermoplastic elastomer particles include styrenic block copolymer (TPS), thermoplastic polyolefin elastomers (TPO), thermoplastic vulcanizate (TPV), thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), thermoplastic copolyester (TPC), thermoplastic polyamide (TPA), or a mixture thereof. (A variety of thermoplastic polymers, for example, polyamide 12, thermoplastic polyurethane, pg. 7, lines 30- pg. 8, lines 11).
Regarding claim 10, Rudisill teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the fused three-dimensional object after thermally treating compared to the fused three-dimensional object prior to thermally treating has an enhanced layer-to-layer mechanical property in the Z- direction. (Rudisill teaches several mechanical properties of the sample articles were then measured. The mechanical properties are shown in Table 3, pg. 28. Examiner notes that Table 3 depicts an increase in Tensile Strength due to post curing)
Regarding claim 11, Rudisill teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the enhanced mechanical property in the Z-direction (Rudisill teaches several mechanical properties of the sample articles were then measured. The mechanical properties are shown in Table 3, pg. 28. Examiner notes that Table 3 depicts an increase in Tensile Strength due to post curing)
Rudisill does not explicitly teach provides from about 70% to about 200% strain at break, from about 6 MPa to about 12 MPa tensile strength, from about 30 MPa to about 70 MPa Young's Modulus, or a combination thereof, but it is presumed an inherent property of claimed materials and methods, see MPEP 2112.01.
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).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudisill (WO 2020/251541 A1) in view of Feng et al. (US 2019/0039295 A1), and in further view of Ugarte et al. (US 2020/0254520 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Rudisill as modified meets the claimed method of claim 6, but does not teach wherein applying the individual build material layers includes applying a plurality or all of the individual build material layers of the thermoplastic elastomer particles at a layer thickness from about 180 um to about 400 um.
Ugarte teaches that each successive layer may be, for example, between about 10 μm and 200 μm, although the thickness may be selected based on any number of parameters and may be any suitable size according to alternative embodiments, [0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to vary the layer thickness of Rudisill to be 200 μm as taught by Ugarte because Ugarte teaches layer thickness to be varied based on any number of parameters, see [0022].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16-18 are allowed.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art or record does not teach or reasonably suggest the method of claim 6, wherein the melting point of the thermoplastic elastomer particles ranges from 130°C to about 140°C, wherein the temperature is 155°, and wherein the time period is 20 hours.
Rudisill teaches after printing a three-dimensional printed article, the article was post-cured for 20 hours at 170 °C, pg. 28, lines 14-15.
Claims 17-18 are allowed because each claim depends from allowed claim 16.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M. ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0467. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-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, Sam Zhao can be reached at (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.
/MICHAEL M. ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights