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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the application filed on 05/10/2023. Currently claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 103 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made 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 non-obviousness.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Osaka et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0272844 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Osaka”, in view of Warner et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0251713 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Warner”.
Regarding claim 1, Osaka teaches a method of additive manufacturing comprising: forming one or more parts by performing, a plurality of times: depositing a layer of build material powder, wherein particles of the build material powder are coated with a organic material; and depositing a binder composition on at least a portion of the layer of build material powder; by teaching a method of additive manufacturing (para. [0012]) comprising the steps of: depositing a layer of base material (para. [0065]) where the base material may be powder in the form of metal (para. [0065], [0121]) that may be coated with a first material in the form of organic material (para. [0064]); depositing a liquid material (equivalent to binder) over the powder material layer (para. [0136]).
But Osaka fails to explicitly teach that the binder composition comprising a precursor material comprising a monomer and/or a polymer, the monomer and/or polymer comprising an unsaturated carbon-carbon bond, thereby causing the monomer and/or polymer of the precursor material to undergo a metathesis chain-growth polymerization reaction catalyzed by the catalyst. However, Warner teaches a 3-D printing additive manufacturing process that builds a part in a layer-by-layer fashion to create a three-dimensional object (para. [0003]), by mixing a powder with a binder material (para. [0025]). Warner also teaches to include ring opening metathesis polymerization (ROMP) systems in the 3-D manufacturing process (para. [0088-0091]). Warner teaches preferably a two-part ROMP system is used, wherein, one part includes a monomer and catalyst precursor and the second part includes the monomer and activator. For example, Schiff base bearing ruthenium catalysts combined with acid activators in the polymerization of dicyclopentadiene, comprising of unsaturated carbon-carbon bond (para. [0090]). Warner also teaches to use a ROMP catalyst ((1,3-Bis(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-2-imidazolidinylidene ) dichloro (phenylmethylene) (tricyclohexylphosphine) ruthenium, in Example 2 (para. [0154]). Warner further teaches heating the deposited uncured material for the purpose of curing (para. {0024]) to obtain the 3D object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Warner and substitute the binder composition comprising a precursor material comprising a monomer and/or a polymer, the monomer and/or polymer comprising an unsaturated carbon-carbon bond and a catalyst, thereby causing the monomer and/or polymer of the precursor material to undergo a metathesis chain-growth polymerization reaction catalyzed by the catalyst, thereby allowing to use unconventional materials to form 3D printed such as human organ replacements and turbine parts (para. [0003-0004]) to obtain predictable results. Since both the references deal with 3D printed objects, one would have reasonable expectation of success from the substitution.
Regarding claims 2-5, Warner teaches a method of additive manufacturing, wherein the precursor material comprises dicyclopentadiene (as claimed in claim 3), which a monomer comprising an unsaturated carbon-carbon bond (as claimed in claim 2), and wherein the monomer and/or polymer comprises two or more unsaturated carbon-carbon bonds (as claimed in claim 4), and wherein the monomer and/or polymer comprises a bicyclic ring (as claimed in claim 5); by teaching to use dicyclopentadiene (DCPD) in Example 2 (para. [0154]).
.
Regarding claims 6, Warner teaches a method of additive manufacturing, wherein the metathesis chain-growth polymerization reaction comprises a ring-opening olefin metathesis polymerization reaction (para. [0088]).
Regarding claims 7-9, Warner teaches a method of additive manufacturing, wherein the catalyst comprises a metal (ruthenium) center (as claimed in claim 7), and wherein the metal center is a transition metal (ruthenium) (as claimed in claim 8), and wherein the catalyst comprises a Grubbs catalyst; by teaching to use a ROMP catalyst ((1,3-Bis(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-2-imidazolidinylidene ) dichloro (phenylmethylene) (tricyclohexylphosphine) ruthenium, (Aldrich Catalog number 569747), which is commonly known as Grubbs catalyst, in Example 2 (para. [0154]).
Regarding claims 10-11, Warner teaches a method of additive manufacturing, wherein the monomer and/or polymer are a first monomer and/or first polymer, and wherein the precursor material further comprises a second monomer and/or a second polymer comprising an unsaturated carbon-carbon bond, wherein the first monomer and/or first polymer is different than the second monomer and/or second polymer, and wherein the first monomer and/or first polymer comprises dicyclopentadiene and the second monomer and/or the second polymer comprises cyclooctene; by teaching that the monomers are strained unsaturated ring systems and can be selected from the group consisting of dicyclopentadiene, norbomadiene, substituted dicyclopentadiene, substituted norbomadiene, cyclooctene, cyclic olefins, vinylene-bridged ans-ferrocene and mixtures of these (para. [0091]).
Regarding claims 12-13, Osaka, in view of Warner teaches a method of additive manufacturing comprising curing the deposited build material powder and the deposited binder composition. wherein the curing causes or accelerates the polymerization reaction; by teaching: forming one or more parts by performing, a plurality of times: depositing a layer of build material powder, wherein particles of the build material powder are coated with an organic material (catalyst); and depositing a binder composition on at least a portion of the layer of build material powder, and also teaching a ring opening metathesis polymerization (ROMP) reaction process in the 3-D manufacturing (para. [0088-0091]). Warner also that the curing comprises heating the deposited build material powder and the deposited binder composition; by further teaching heating the deposited uncured material for the purpose of curing (para. {0024]) to obtain the 3D object.
Regarding claims 14-15, Osaka, in view of Warner teaches a method of additive manufacturing to manufacture a 3D object using powder, catalyst, and binder material. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the property of the final article will depend on the composition of the ingredients used in the process. Therefore, the composition ingredient ranges would be considered a result effective variable for the process. Additionally, the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Therefore, maintaining the precursor material comprising of the monomer and/or the polymer in an amount greater than or equal to 80 wt.% (as claimed in claim 14), and the catalyst that coats the build material powder in an amount of greater than or equal to 0.1 wt.% by weight of the coating (as claimed in claim 15), would be a matter of optimization that would be performed under routine experimentation. Please see In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 16, Osaka teaches a method of additive manufacturing, wherein the binder composition further comprises a solvent and/or a surfactant (para. [0014], [0049]).
Regarding claim 17, Osaka teaches a method of additive manufacturing, wherein the build material powder comprises a metal powder (para. [0067]).
Regarding claim 18, Osaka teaches a method of additive manufacturing comprising: forming one or more parts by performing, a plurality of times: depositing a layer of build material powder, wherein particles of the build material powder are coated with a precursor material comprising a monomer and/or a polymer, and depositing a binder composition on at least a portion of the layer of build material powder; by teaching a method of additive manufacturing (para. [0012]) comprising the steps of: depositing a layer of base material (para. [0065]) where the base material may be powder in the form of metal (para. [0065], [0121]) that may be coated with a first material in the form of organic material (para. [0064], [0082-0104); depositing a liquid material (equivalent to binder composition) over the powder material layer (para. [0136]).
But Osaka fails to explicitly teach that the monomer and/or polymer comprising an unsaturated carbon-carbon bond; and that the binder composition comprising a catalyst, thereby causing the monomer and/or polymer of the precursor material to undergo a metathesis chain-growth polymerization reaction catalyzed by the catalyst. However, Warner teaches a 3-D printing additive manufacturing process that builds a part in a layer-by-layer fashion to create a three-dimensional object (para. [0003]), by mixing a powder with a binder material (para. [0025]). Warner also teaches to include ring opening metathesis polymerization (ROMP) systems in the 3-D manufacturing process (para. [0088-0091]). Warner teaches preferably a two-part ROMP system is used, wherein, one part includes a monomer and catalyst precursor and the second part includes the monomer and activator. For example, Schiff base bearing ruthenium catalysts combined with acid activators in the polymerization of dicyclopentadiene, comprising of unsaturated carbon-carbon bond (para. [0090]). Warner also teaches to use a ROMP catalyst ((1,3-Bis(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-2-imidazolidinylidene ) dichloro (phenylmethylene) (tricyclohexylphosphine) ruthenium, (Aldrich Catalog number 569747), which is commonly known as Grubbs catalyst, in Example 2 (para. [0154]). Warner further teaches heating the deposited uncured material for the purpose of curing (para. {0024]) to obtain the 3D object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Warner and substitute the composition by using monomer and/or polymer comprising an unsaturated carbon-carbon bond; and that the binder composition comprising a catalyst, thereby causing the monomer and/or polymer of the precursor material to undergo a metathesis chain-growth polymerization reaction catalyzed by the catalyst, thereby allowing to use unconventional materials to form 3D printed such as human organ replacements and turbine parts (para. [0003-0004]) to obtain predictable results. Since both the references deal with 3D printed objects, one would have reasonable expectation of success from the substitution.
Regarding claim 19, Osaka teaches a method of additive manufacturing comprising: forming one or more parts by performing, a plurality of times: depositing a layer of build material powder, wherein particles of the build material powder are coated with a precursor material comprising a monomer and/or a polymer; and depositing a binder composition; by teaching a method of additive manufacturing (para. [0012]) comprising the steps of: depositing a layer of base material (para. [0065]) where the base material may be powder in the form of metal (para. [0065], [0121]) that may be coated with a first material in the form of organic material (para. [0064], [0082-0104); depositing a liquid material (equivalent to binder composition) over the powder material layer (para. [0136]).
But Osaka fails to explicitly teach that the monomer and/or polymer comprising an unsaturated carbon-carbon bond; and depositing a binder composition comprising a catalyst, thereby causing the monomer and/or polymer of the precursor material to undergo a metathesis chain-growth polymerization reaction catalyzed by the catalyst upon activation by the activator. However, Warner teaches a 3-D printing additive manufacturing process that builds a part in a layer-by-layer fashion to create a three-dimensional object (para. [0003]), by mixing a powder with a binder material (para. [0025]). Warner also teaches to include ring opening metathesis polymerization (ROMP) systems in the 3-D manufacturing process (para. [0088-0091]). Warner teaches preferably a two-part ROMP system is used, wherein, one part includes a monomer and catalyst precursor and the second part includes the monomer and activator. For example, Schiff base bearing ruthenium catalysts combined with acid activators in the polymerization of dicyclopentadiene, comprising of unsaturated carbon-carbon bond (para. [0090]). Warner also teaches to use a ROMP catalyst ((1,3-Bis(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-2-imidazolidinylidene ) dichloro (phenylmethylene) (tricyclohexylphosphine) ruthenium, (Aldrich Catalog number 569747), which is commonly known as Grubbs catalyst, in Example 2 (para. [0154]). Warner also teaches the use of a two-part ROMP system, wherein, one part includes a monomer and catalyst precursor and the second part includes the monomer and activator (para. [0090]). Warner further teaches heating the deposited uncured material for the purpose of curing (para. {0024]) to obtain the 3D object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Warner and substitute the composition by using monomer and/or polymer comprising an unsaturated carbon-carbon bond; and depositing a binder composition comprising a catalyst, thereby causing the monomer and/or polymer of the precursor material to undergo a metathesis chain-growth polymerization reaction catalyzed by the catalyst upon activation by the activator, thereby allowing to use unconventional materials to form 3D printed such as human organ replacements and turbine parts (para. [0003-0004]) to obtain predictable results. Since both the references deal with 3D printed objects, one would have reasonable expectation of success from the substitution.
Regarding claim 20, Osaka teaches a method of additive manufacturing comprising: forming one or more parts by performing, a plurality of times: depositing a layer of build material powder, wherein particles of the build material powder are coated with an organic material; and depositing a binder composition; by teaching a method of additive manufacturing (para. [0012]) comprising the steps of: depositing a layer of base material (para. [0065]) where the base material may be powder in the form of metal (para. [0065], [0121]) that may be coated with a first material in the form of organic material (para. [0064], [0082-0104); depositing a liquid material (equivalent to binder composition) over the powder material layer (para. [0136]).
But Osaka fails to explicitly teach that the binder composition comprising a latent catalyst and a precursor material comprising a monomer and/or a polymer, the monomer and/or polymer comprising an unsaturated carbon-carbon bond, thereby causing the monomer and/or polymer of the precursor material to undergo a metathesis chain-growth polymerization reaction catalyzed by the catalyst upon activation by the activator. However, Warner teaches a 3-D printing additive manufacturing process that builds a part in a layer-by-layer fashion to create a three-dimensional object (para. [0003]), by mixing a powder with a binder material (para. [0025]). Warner also teaches to include ring opening metathesis polymerization (ROMP) systems in the 3-D manufacturing process (para. [0088-0091]). Warner teaches preferably a two-part ROMP system is used, wherein, one part includes a monomer and catalyst precursor and the second part includes the monomer and activator. For example, Schiff base bearing ruthenium catalysts combined with acid activators in the polymerization of dicyclopentadiene, comprising of unsaturated carbon-carbon bond (para. [0090]). Warner also teaches to use a ROMP catalyst ((1,3-Bis(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-2-imidazolidinylidene ) dichloro (phenylmethylene) (tricyclohexylphosphine) ruthenium, (Aldrich Catalog number 569747), which is commonly known as Grubbs catalyst, in Example 2 (para. [0154]). Warner also teaches the use of a two-part ROMP system, wherein, one part includes a monomer and catalyst precursor and the second part includes the monomer and activator (para. [0090]). Warner further teaches heating the deposited uncured material for the purpose of curing (para. {0024]) to obtain the 3D object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Warner and substitute the composition by using binder composition comprising a latent catalyst and a precursor material comprising a monomer and/or a polymer, the monomer and/or polymer comprising an unsaturated carbon-carbon bond, thereby causing the monomer and/or polymer of the precursor material to undergo a metathesis chain-growth polymerization reaction catalyzed by the catalyst upon activation by the activator, thereby allowing to use unconventional materials to form 3D printed such as human organ replacements and turbine parts (para. [0003-0004]) to obtain predictable results. Since both the references deal with 3D printed objects, one would have reasonable expectation of success from the substitution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M AMEEN whose telephone number is (469) 295 9214. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9.00 am to 6.00 pm (Central Time).
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 Johnson can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD M AMEEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742