DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment dated 19 August 2026 is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1 and 4-18 as amended are pending.
All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 and 4-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (from which claims 4-18 depend) recites “the thermoplastic polyester not processed into particles”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim, as there is no prior recitation of a non-particulate polyester.
Claim 6 depends from claim 3, which has been canceled. It is therefore unclear what additional limitations are to be incorporated. For the purposes of applying prior art, it will be presumed that this claim depends from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 and 4-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0293918 (“Lucas”) in view of JP 2006-321711 A (“Sugano”).
As to claims 1, 4, 5, 16, and 18, Lucas teaches thermoplastic polymer powder (particles) (abstract). Lucas teaches a d50 particle size between 30 and 70 micrometers (para. 0007), and a diameter span of 0.85 to 1.2 (para. 0007), and a sphericity of 0.85 and 1 (para. 0008), which are within the ranges of claim 1, and substantially overlaps the range of claim 18.
While not exemplified, Lucas teaches that the particles may be polyethylene terephthalate (para. 0033), a polyester as required by claims 1 and 16. While a sintering window is not recited, the thermoplastic polyester is presumed to have the same sintering window as another polyester not formed into particles.
As such, it would be an obvious modification to prepare the particles of Lucas, including the recited particle size and circularity as required, using polyethylene terephthalate as suggested by Lucas.
Lucas does not discuss the recited nanoparticulate on the outer surface. However, Sugano teaches microsphere thermoplastic polymer particles for laser sintering (similar to process of Lucas), including polyester particles (para. 0033), and teaches the utility of incorporating particles on the surface, preferably fine silica particles, an oxide (para. 0041), preferably having a particle size of 5 to 500 nm (para. 0042), thus nanoparticles as required by claims 1, 4, and 5. Sugano does not refer to these as emulsion stabilizers, but are presumed to be so, being the same material. Sugano teaches that such particles on the surface of microspheres prevents aggregation and improve fluidity (para. 0007) assisting in powder sintering. While Sugano does not discuss embedding, the coating of porous polymer particles with nanofillers would be reasonably expected to result in surface embedment of nanosized particles. As such, it would be an obvious modification to coat the particles of Lucas with oxide nanoparticles, in particular silica nanoparticles for improving the particle behavior during sintering.
As to claim 6, Lucas does not teach a recited amount of nanoparticles, but Sugano teaches that 0.1 to 5 wt % of the fine particles, including nanoparticles provides the desired effects (para. 0009).
As to claim 7, Lucas teaches some porosity (para. 0019), and given the stabilizer is at the surface, it is presumed at an interface of void and thermoplastic polymer.
As to claim 8, Lucas does not teach the coating of nanoparticles, but Sugano teaches at least 50 % of the surface of resulting particles (para. 0027, suggesting coating all surface of particles).
As to claim 9, Lucas teaches forming particles of the thermoplastic polymer, with additives other than additive A optional. Lucas teaches that additive A may be mainly removed (paras. 0091-0092), which suggests a high amount of the thermoplastic polymer, with little remaining additive, and while the amount if not recited, Lucas suggests near 100 % of the thermoplastic polymer.
As to claims 10 and 11, while the d10, d50, and d90 are not recited, but given a d50 range of 30 to 70 micrometers (in the recited range) and a span range of 0.85 to 1.2 (in the range of claim 11), it is calculated that each of d10, d50, and d90 must each be in the recited range.
As to claim 12, Lucas does not teach the recited size distribution. Howeer, Sugano teaches that similar particles for laser sintering can be made in the recited range such as 5 micrometers (para. 0020). Given the teaching for a low particle size distribution, it would be obvious to apply the particles of Lucas having narrow particle distribution to the small size of Sugano, providing d10, d50, and d90 in the recited ranges around 5 micrometers.
As to claims 13 and 14, Lucas teaches a d50 in the range of 30 to 70 micrometers (in the range of claim 14) which is within the recited range. Lucas does not teach a range of d10 and d90. However, given the recited span of 0.85 to 1.2 (in the range of claim 14) provides for a d10 ranging from greater than 0 to approximately 59 micrometers, and d90 ranging from approximately 56 to 154, which substantially overlap the ranges of claim 13, and encompass the range of claim 14. As such, while not exemplified, the d50 and span taught by Lucas suggest the d10 and d90 ranges of claims 13 and 14.
As to claim 15, while not exemplified with polyester, Lucas teaches forming thermoplastic particles of the recited Hausner ratio, Lucas teaches high flowability of the particles (suggesting low Hausner ratio), and shows examples of particles having packed density/apparent (bulk) density in the recited range (para. 0119), and as such, providing particles of the recited Hausner range is an obvious modification suggested by Lucas.
As to claim 17, while not exemplified, Lucas teaches the particles may include polyalkylene oxides (polyether) thermoplastics (paras. 0040-0041), and as such, the use of such additional thermoplastic is suggested by Lucas.
Claims 1 and 4-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0293918 (“Lucas”) in view of CA 3035939 A1 (“Farrugia”).
The applied reference CA 3035939 A1 has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the publication date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(1)(A); or (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B).
As to claims 1, 4, 5, 16, and 18, Lucas teaches thermoplastic polymer powder (particles) (abstract). Lucas teaches a d50 particle size between 30 and 70 micrometers (para. 0007), and a diameter span of 0.85 to 1.2 (para. 0007), and a sphericity of 0.85 and 1 (para. 0008), which are within the ranges of claim 1, and substantially overlaps the range of claim 18.
While not exemplified, Lucas teaches that the particles may be polyethylene terephthalate (para. 0033), a polyester as required by claims 1 and 16. While a sintering window is not recited, the thermoplastic polyester is presumed to have the same sintering window as another polyester not formed into particles.
As such, it would be an obvious modification to prepare the particles of Lucas, including the recited particle size and circularity as required, using polyethylene terephthalate as suggested by Lucas.
Lucas does not discuss the recited nanoparticulate on the outer surface. However, Farrugia teaches the utility of embedding nanoparticles on the surface of polyester powder particles for laser sintering (abstract, para. 0020, 0024), in particular silica nanoparticles as required by claims 4 and 5. Farrugia teaches the use of such nanoparticles enhances the properties of parts made from the powder (para. 0050). As such, the modification of the particles of Lucas, using embedded silica, is an obvious modification to improve properties in laser sintering.
As to claim 6, Lucas does not teach a recited amount of nanoparticles, but Farrugia teaches amounts of silica in the recited range to increase strength (para. 0052).
As to claim 7, Lucas teaches some porosity (para. 0019), and given the nanoparticles are at the surface, it is presumed at an interface of void and thermoplastic polymer.
As to claim 8, Lucas does not discuss a coating of the recited percentage, but Farrugia suggests embdedding particles to cover at least 50 % of the surface (see Farrugia, figs.).
As to claim 9, Lucas teaches forming particles of the thermoplastic polymer, with additives other than additive A optional. Lucas teaches that additive A may be mainly removed (paras. 0091-0092), which suggests a high amount of the thermoplastic polymer, with little remaining additive, and while the amount if not recited, Lucas suggests near 100 % of the thermoplastic polymer.
As to claims 10 and 11, while the d10, d50, and d90 are not recited, but given a d50 range of 30 to 70 micrometers (in the recited range) and a span range of 0.85 to 1.2 (in the range of claim 11), it is calculated that each of d10, d50, and d90 must each be in the recited range.
As to claim 12, Lucas does not teach the recited size distribution. Howeer, Sugano teaches that similar particles for laser sintering can be made in the recited range such as 5 micrometers (para. 0011). Given the teaching for a low particle size distribution, it would be obvious to apply the particles of Lucas having narrow particle distribution to the small size of Farrugia, providing d10, d50, and d90 in the recited ranges around 5 micrometers.
As to claims 13 and 14, Lucas teaches a d50 in the range of 30 to 70 micrometers (in the range of claim 14) which is within the recited range. Lucas does not teach a range of d10 and d90. However, given the recited span of 0.85 to 1.2 (in the range of claim 14) provides for a d10 ranging from greater than 0 to approximately 59 micrometers, and d90 ranging from approximately 56 to 154, which substantially overlap the ranges of claim 13, and encompass the range of claim 14. As such, while not exemplified, the d50 and span taught by Lucas suggest the d10 and d90 ranges of claims 13 and 14.
As to claim 15, while not exemplified with polyester, Lucas teaches forming thermoplastic particles of the recited Hausner ratio, Lucas teaches high flowability of the particles (suggesting low Hausner ratio), and shows examples of particles having packed density/apparent (bulk) density in the recited range (para. 0119), and as such, providing particles of the recited Hausner range is an obvious modification suggested by Lucas.
As to claim 17, while not exemplified, Lucas teaches the particles may include polyalkylene oxides (polyether) thermoplastics (paras. 0040-0041), and as such, the use of such additional thermoplastic is suggested by Lucas.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While Sugano does not discuss “embedding”, the fact that Sugano teaches applying nanoparticles to a surface having some porosity, would be expected to provide embedding.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b), the rejections are modified as above, since a thermoplastic polyester not formed into particles does not have antecedent basis. It appears applicant may be suggesting a product by process claim (i.e., a thermoplastic polyester particle that is formed from a non-particulate polyester having sintering window within 5 degrees C), but this must be stated explicitly.
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 KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is (313)446-4888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9 am to 5:30 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, Arrie Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
