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 is a final Office Action in response to a non-final Office Action reply filed 3/20/26 in which claims 1 and 9 were amended, claims 6-8 and 17-20 were canceled and claims 21-23 were added.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-5, 9-16 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dippel (US 2022/0024118).
For claims 1-5, 9-11 and 21-23, Dippel teaches a method of fabricating a syntactic foam object, the method comprising: (a) illuminating a region in a layer of a precursor powder comprising thermoplastic elastomer particles and hollow particles with a laser beam of a selective laser sintering system (SLS) to convert the region to a porous, sintered region comprising the hollow particles and a solid thermoplastic elastomer matrix that would have a surface that defines pores distributed throughout the porous, sintered region; (b) repeating step (a) one or more additional times in one or more additional layers, each layer comprising the precursor powder, to provide one or more additional porous, sintered regions ([0060]); wherein the thermoplastic elastomer particles comprise thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer particles, thermoplastic polyamide elastomer particles, or thermoplastic copolyester elastomer particles ([0047]); the hollow particles comprise glass microbubbles or cenospheres ([0061]); or the thermoplastic elastomer particles comprise thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer particles and the hollow particles comprise glass microbubbles ([0060]); and the hollow particles in the porous, sintered region comprise embedded hollow particles ([0070]) which would have entire surface areas surrounded by and in contact with the solid thermoplastic elastomer matrix.
Though Dippel does not teach the hollow particles in the porous, sintered region comprise protruding hollow particles that protrude out of the of the surface of the solid thermoplastic elastomer matrix and into the pores defined by that surface; the embedded hollow particles have diameters smaller than diameters of the protruding hollow particles; or the hollow particles in the precursor powder comprise hollow particles characterized by a first D50 particle size and hollow particles characterized by a second, different D50 particle size; there is a greater number of protruding hollow particles than embedded hollow particles; substantially all of the hollow particles are protruding hollow particles; and at least some of the protruding hollow particles span across pores of the solid thermoplastic elastomer matrix to form bridges, Dippel does teach crush strength can be varied by defining the wall thickness and particle size distribution of the light weighting filler used ([0063]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the hollow particles in the porous, sintered region comprise protruding hollow particles that protrude out of the of the surface of the solid thermoplastic elastomer matrix and into the pores defined by that surface; the embedded hollow particles have diameters smaller than diameters of the protruding hollow particles; the embedded hollow particles have diameters smaller than diameters of the protruding hollow particles; or the hollow particles in the precursor powder comprise hollow particles characterized by a first D50 particle size and hollow particles characterized by a second, different D50 particle size; there is a greater number of protruding hollow particles than embedded hollow particles; substantially all of the hollow particles are protruding hollow particles; and at least some of the protruding hollow particles span across pores of the solid thermoplastic elastomer matrix to form bridges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to perform routine experimentation for the purpose of optimizing the characteristics of the syntactic foam by adjusting the hollow particle parameters. Please see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 for further details.
For claim 12, though Dippel does not teach the porous, sintered region is characterized by a porosity in a range of from 20% to 40%, Dippel does teach targeting higher levels of voids and porosity in the printed output such that a foam is produced having a desired, lower density ([0041]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the porous, sintered region be characterized by a porosity in a range of from 20% to 40%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to perform routine experimentation for the purpose of optimizing the porosity in order to produce a foam part that possesses gradient properties as desired throughout the single continuous part as suggested by Dippel ([0041]). Please see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 for further details.
For claims 13-16, though Dippel does not teach step (a) is carried out under a value of a parameter selected from an energy density of the laser beam, a D50 particle size of the hollow particles in the precursor powder, a volume fraction of the hollow particles in the precursor powder, or combinations thereof, wherein the value is determined from a calibration plot of compressive modulus or compressive strength as a function of each parameter; the hollow particles in the precursor powder have a D50 particle size, a volume fraction, or both, selected to provide the porous, sintered region with a predetermined compressive strength or a predetermined compressive modulus; the D50 particle size, the volume fraction, or both, are selected from a calibration plot of compressive strength and compressive modulus as a function of the D50 particle size and the volume fraction; and generating the calibration plot, Dippel does teach crush strength can be varied by defining the wall thickness and particle size distribution of the light weighting filler used (see citation above), the goal is to obtain a TPU foam output having particular characteristics including hardness, specific gravity, compression set and rebound/resilience ([0049], Examiner notes that compressive strength and modulus often increase alongside hardness, specific gravity, and resilience, while they typically decrease as the compression set increases), and a user may select desired output characteristics, and may be able to select one or more processes and/or process characteristics, and may be provided with an input material (including compound and/or fillers) that may be needed to obtain the desired selected output using the selected process ([0082]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have step (a) be carried out under a value of a parameter selected from an energy density of the laser beam, a D50 particle size of the hollow particles in the precursor powder, a volume fraction of the hollow particles in the precursor powder, or combinations thereof, wherein the value is determined from a calibration plot of compressive modulus or compressive strength as a function of each parameter; the hollow particles in the precursor powder have a D50 particle size, a volume fraction, or both, selected to provide the porous, sintered region with a predetermined compressive strength or a predetermined compressive modulus; the D50 particle size, the volume fraction, or both, be selected from a calibration plot of compressive strength and compressive modulus as a function of the D50 particle size and the volume fraction; and to generate the calibration plot, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to perform routine experimentation for the purpose of being able to produce syntactic foams with desired characteristics. Please see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 for further details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that as described in the present application, the demonstrated correlation of the physical characteristics of the hollow particles to the structure of the porous, sintered regions and the resulting effect on hollow particle incorporation was unexpected. (Present Application, paragraphs 3, 33, 36.) Instead, the SLS parameters would have been thought to exclusively control the structure of the porous, sintered regions and would lead to melting the thermoplastic elastomer around the hollow particles, leading to substantially all of the hollow particles being embedded, rather than protruding. Moreover, the claimed structural feature of protruding hollow particles was found to be tied to a counterintuitive mechanical property-increased stiffness with decreased densification stress. (Present Application, paragraph 40.) and this is an unexpected result not predictable based on Dippel's suggestion that microspheres could be added to TPU-based powders and processed into foams using various additive manufacturing techniques.
Examiner suggests that to further prosecution and to demonstrate unexpected results, Applicant should submit an affidavit showing why the claimed subject matter would be unexpected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 JAMES SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-7007. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Galen Hauth can be reached on 571-270-5516. 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.
/JAMES SANDERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights