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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
• In para. 0022 of the specification, the sentence “It should be understood that ‘inks’ (and singular forms thereof) may be used interchangeably and refer to a composition of matter comprising a composition of matter may be ‘written,’ extruded, printed, or otherwise deposited…” is confusingly written. To correct, the Examiner suggests amending the sentence as follows: “It should be understood that ‘inks’ (and singular forms thereof) may be used interchangeably and refer to a composition of matter that may be ‘written,’ extruded, printed, or otherwise deposited…”
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 02/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant has elected to elect with traverse. Applicants do not provide any arguments related to the restriction requirement. Therefore, the restriction/election requirement is still deemed proper and is made final.
Claims 16-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 16-22 are directed to a non-elected invention. Applicant timely traversed the restriction requirement in the reply filed on 02/12/2026.
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.
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 1-5, 7, 10-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Sodano et al. (US-20220001597-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Sodano”), or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C 103 as obvious over Sodano.
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 7, Sodano teaches an ink (see Sodano at para. 0076, teaching a polymeric solution in liquid form; the polymeric solution corresponds to the claimed “ink”), comprising:
• a thermoplastic polymer; and a solvent selected to melt the thermoplastic polymer, wherein the thermoplastic polymer is a polycarbonate, and the solvent is acetone (regarding claim 2 and claim 7) (see Sodano at para. 0076, teaching the polymeric solution can include a polymer dissolved in a suitable solvent; also see Sodano at para. 0076, teaching the polymer may be a thermoplastic polymer, such as polycarbonate; also see Sodano at para. 0081, teaching the solvent that dissolves the polymer may include acetone; both polycarbonate and acetone are the same polymer and solvent, respectively, as that claimed in claim 7; thus, it necessarily follows that the solvent “melts” the thermoplastic polymer as claimed; products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, see MPEP § 2112.01(II)).
In the alternative, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select polycarbonate as the thermoplastic polymer and acetone as the solvent in Sodano, given that Sodano teaches both as suitable materials for use in their polymeric solution (see Sodano at para. 0076 and 0081). Though the combination is picked from a multitude of possible combinations, it has been held that though a specific embodiment is not taught as preferred makes it no less obvious, and also, that the mere fact that a reference suggests a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious, See Merck v. Biocraft, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed Cir 1985).
Regarding claim 3, the dissolving of the polymer in the solvent of Sodano is a physical change, and not a chemical change; accordingly, the chemical formula of the polycarbonate polymer is the same before and after solvation with the acetone solvent; moreover, the polycarbonate and acetone of Sodano are the same as that claimed in claim 7, and thus, the former necessarily demonstrates the same chemical formula; products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, see MPEP § 2112.01(II).
Regarding claim 4, see Sodano at para. 0081, teaching the solvent is selected such that it can dissolve the polymer of interest; thus, it necessarily follows the solvent is selected based on the chemical structure of the thermoplastic polymer, i.e., based on the chemical structure that suitably allows for the polymer to dissolve in the solvent.
Regarding claim 5, polycarbonates have a repeating unit having at least one aromatic ring.
Regarding claims 10-12, see Sodano at para. 0079, teaching the polymeric solution may contain a reinforcement material, such as fibers.
Regarding claim 15, see Sodano at para. 0077, teaching the polymeric solution can contain a crosslinking catalyst or initiator, i.e., a crosslinking agent/photoinitiator; also see Sodano at para. 0077, teaching the solution can contain curing agents such as peroxide compounds (i.e., thermal initiators).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included here can be found earlier above in the present Office Action.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sodano, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tardif et al. (US-20220212396-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Tardif”).
Regarding claim 6, Sodano teaches the ink according to claim 1 outlined above, wherein the thermoplastic polymer is polyetherimide and the solvent is tetrahydrofuran (see Sodano at para. 0076, teaching the thermoplastic polymer may be polyetherimide; also see Sodano at para. 0081, teaching the solvent may include tetrahydrofuran; it is noted that polyetherimide and tetrahydrofuran in the claim 6 rejection are used as the polymer and solvent respectively instead of the polycarbonate and acetone in the claim 1 rejection above).
While Sodano teaches the ink outlined above, Sodano fails to explicitly teach the polyetherimide to be an aromatic polyetherimide.
However, polyetherimides, such as ULTEM polymers, are well-known thermoplastic polymers suitable for use in additive manufacturing processes (see Tardif at para. 0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an ULTEM polymer as the thermoplastic polyetherimide polymer in the polymeric solution of Sodano, as the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07.
ULTEM polymers are aromatic polyetherimides.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sodano.
Regarding claim 8, see Sodano at para. 0082, teaching the content of the polymer may be at least 10 wt% in the polymeric solutions; accordingly, it necessarily follows that the content of the solvent may range from 90 wt% or less; accordingly, the ratio of the polymer to the solvent necessarily ranges from 10:90 or greater, which overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05.
In the alternative, Sodano teaches an example polymeric printing solution containing 15 wt% of polymer, and by extension, 85 wt% of solvent, for a polymer to solvent ratio of 15:85 (see Sodano at para. 0113). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the ratio of the polymer to the solvent in the polymeric solution of Sodano to be 15:85, as Sodano teaches an example with such a ratio (see Sodano at para. 0113). The range of 15:85 falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, see Sodano at para. 0081, teaching the solvent may be used in “a combination thereof.” Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use acetone together with an additional solvent, e.g., tetrahydrofuran, given that Sodano teaches combination of solvents may be used together. Combining two or more materials disclosed by the prior art for the same purpose to form a third material that is to be used for the same purpose has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2144.06.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sodano, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Querol Esparch et al. (US-20200115574-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Querol Esparch”), with evidence from Demuth et al. (EP-2969487-B1) (hereinafter referred to as “Demuth”).
Regarding claim 13, while Sodano teaches the ink according to claim 11 outlined above, Sodano fails to explicitly teach the ink as containing a filler where the filler is a pre-ceramic material.
However, Querol Esparch teaches a polymeric powder build material composition for three-dimensional printing which may contain a thermoplastic polymer (see Querol Esparch at para. 0029). Querol Esparch further teaches the composition may contain a reinforcing material filler, such as calcium carbonate and glass fibers (see Querol Esparch at para. 0033).
Sodano teaches their polymeric solution may contain a reinforcing material, such as glass fibers (see Sodano at para. 0079).
In this case, both calcium carbonate and glass fibers are functional equivalents, i.e., both are reinforcing materials suitable for use in additive manufacturing processes (see Querol Esparch at para. 0033; see Sodano at para. 0079).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the glass fibers of Sodano with calcium carbonate like that disclosed by see Querol Esparch, as the substitution of art-recognized equivalents has been shown to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP § 2143. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07.
Calcium carbonate is a pre-ceramic material, as evidence by Demuth at para. 0011.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sodano, as applied to claim 11 above, and in the alternative, further in view of Kira (WO-2019172003-A1), with reference to the included machine translation (hereinafter referred to as “Kira”).
Regarding claim 14, see Sodano at para. 0078, teaching the polymeric solution may contain a reinforcement (i.e., filler), and that the content of the reinforcement can range from 0.005 to 40 wt%; it is the Examiner’s position that a content range of 0.005 to 40 wt% necessarily falls within or overlaps the claimed volume% range of 70 vol% or less (e.g., a content of 0.005 wt% for a filler such as glass fibers necessarily encompasses less than 70 vol% of the polymeric solution); accordingly, Sodano necessarily teaches the limitation.
In the alternative, Kira teaches a three-dimensional modeling resin composition, which may contain a thermoplastic resin and a filler for improving strength (see Kira at pg. 7, para. 9-10; and pg. 8, para. 2). Kira further teaches the filler may include glass cut fiber and graphite (see Kira at pg. 8, para. 3). Moreover, Kira teaches when the content of the filler is above a certain point, the mechanical strength of the 3D structure is likely to increase, but that if the content is too high, the ductility tends to decrease (see Kira at pg. 9, para. 3). In general, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that adjusting the content of a reinforcement filler in a 3D printing composition would impact strength and ductility.
Since Kira teaches that the content of a filler in a 3D printing composition impacts strength and ductility (see Kira at pg. 9, para. 3), the content of the filler in Sodano is a result effective variable. For example, one of ordinary skill would increase the content of the filler enough to impart strength to the material, but not so much so that ductility is negatively impacted. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have adjusted, by routine experimentation, the content of the reinforcement material (i.e., filler) to fall within the claimed range in order to optimize strength and ductility. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Natarajan et al. (US-20210371619-A1) teach a binder solution (see Natarajan at Abstract).
Vaccari (US-20200147861-A1) teaches a process for three-dimensional printing (see Vaccari at Abstract).
Therriault et al. (US-20180022023-A1) teach an ink for solvent-cast 3D printing (see Therriault at Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey E Barzach whose telephone number is (571)272-8735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 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, Amber R Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. 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.
/J.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/AMBER R ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights