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 .
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 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 recites particles comprising a thermoplastic polyester, and a sintering window within 5 degrees C of the thermoplastic polyester. Since this is the same material, and thus has the same properties as itself, it is unclear what further limitation is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9-11, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2021/0052768 (“Lee”) as evidenced by US 6,632,891 (“Tada”).
The additional reference is used to show that a recited characteristic is inherent. See MPEP 2131.01.
As to claims 1 and 18, Lee teaches particles of polycaprolactone, a thermoplastic polyester as evidenced by Tada, 10:57-62. Lee teaches examples having D50 in the recited range and span in the recited range (para. 0105, table 1). While Lee does not discuss the circularity, it can be seen from the figures that the microspheres are highly circular, and can be considered to meet the circularity requirement of claims 1 and 18.
Lee does not discuss the sintering window; however, since it is the same material, it is presumed to have the same sintering window.
As to claim 9, Lee exemplifies a sphere of approximately 4.5 g of polycaprolactone with 0.5 g of ascorbic acid, or 90 % of the thermoplastic polyester (para. 0056).
As to claims 10 and 11, Lee teaches example with d50 of 36.7, which is within the recited range. While Lee does not disclose d10 and d90 of this example, Lee teaches the same example having a span of 0.61, within the range of claim 11. It is calculated therefore that d90-d10 is approximately 22 micrometers, such that d10 must be in a range from 14.7 to 36.7 micrometers, and d90 must be in the range of greater than 36.7 to 58.7. It is therefore reasonable to presume the three values are in the recited ranges of claim 10.
As to claim 15, while Hausner ratio is not recited, the particles of Lee have the same circularity, size and span as recited, and are thus presumed to meet the recited Hausner ratio.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6,150,021 (“Blatter”).
As to claims 1 and 18, Blatter teaches thermoplastic polyester powders (8:15-16). Blatter teaches the particles are spherical. While the degree of circularity is not recited, Fig. 1 shows particles of near perfect circularity, and thus teaches particles having the circularity of claims 1 and 18. Blatter teaches numerous examples having particle size d50 in the recited range, and span in the recited range (Table 2). While Blatter does not discuss sintering window, the thermoplastic polyester is presumed to have the same sintering window, being the same material. It is noted that the polyester is formed during the formation of the particles (8:18-32).
As to claim 9, Blatter teaches examples having low amounts of dispersant (Table 2), thus the recited amount of the thermoplastic polyester.
As to claim 15, while Blatter does not discuss the Hausner ratio, given the same span and sphericity, the particles of Blatter are presumed to have the same Hausner ratio.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2017/014431 A1 (“Kim”) as evidenced by US 6,632,891 (“Tada”).
A partial machine translation is enclosed.
The additional reference is used to show that a recited characteristic is inherent. See MPEP 2131.01.
As to claims 1 and 18, Kim teaches perfect spherical microparticles of biodegradable polymer, specifically polycaprolactone, a thermoplastic polyester as evidenced by Tada, 10:57-62, having perfect spherical shape, which would be expected to meet the range of circularity of claims 1 and 18 (pa. 16, preparation example 2). Preparation example 2 has a d50 of 43 micrometers, and span of 0.61, which is within the recited range. Kim does not discuss the sintering window, but it is presumed to be the same, being the same material as recited, the thermoplastic polyester.
As to claims 10, 11, and 13, preparation example 2 has a d10 of 31 micrometers, d50 of 43 micrometers, d90 of 61 micrometers, span of 0.70, all within the ranges of claims 10, 11, and 13.
As to claim 15, Kim does not discuss Hausner ratio, but since the particles have the same particle size and span and circularity, they are presumed to have the recited Hausner ratio.
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.
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, 2, 7-11, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0293918 (“Lucas”).
As to claims 1, 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 the same as itself, and thus presumed to have the same sintering window.
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.
As to claim 2, while not exemplified with polyester, Lucas teaches associating an additive, such as a polyalkylene oxide block copolymer to stabilize the molten mixture in water (para. 0116), which is presumed to be an emulsion stabilizer being amphiphilic. This disperses the polymer in the compound A (para. 0026), thus associated with the surface of the particle as it is formed.
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 teaches dispersing the thermoplastic polymer in the additive, and thus it is reasonable to presume a coating of at least 50 % of the surface of resulting particles (para. 0092).
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 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 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0293918 (“Lucas”) as applied to claim 2, further in view of JP 2006-321711 A (“Sugano”).
A partial machine translation of JP 2006-321711 A is enclosed.
As to claims 3-5, Lucas does not discuss the recited nanoparticulate emulsion stabilizer 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. 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. 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).
Claims 10-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,150,021 (“Blatter”).
The discussion of Blatter with respect to claim 1 is incorporated by reference.
As to claims 10-12, Blatter teaches an example having d50 of 7.62 micrometers (in the recited range of claims 10 and 12) and span of 1.51 (in the range of claim 11). While d10 and d90 are not exemplified, it is calculated that this population of particles has a d10 that must range from approximately 0 to below 7.62, which substantially overlaps the recited range of claims 10 and 12, and a d90 in the range of greater than 7.62 to 19 micrometers, which is in the range of claim 10, and substantially overlaps the recited range of claim 12, and as such, the recited d10 and d90 are obvious modifications within the span and particle size taught by Blatter.
As to claims 13 and 14, Blatter teaches an example having d50 of 32.1 micrometers (within the recited range of claims 13 and 14), and a span of 1.35 (within the range of claim 14). While d10 and d90 are not disclosed, the d50 and span suggest a d10 ranging from greater than 0 to less than 32.1, which substantially overlaps the recited ranges of claims 13 and 14, and a d90 that must be in the range of greater than 32.1 to approximately 75 micrometers, which overlaps the recited ranges of claims 13 and 14. The d10 and d90 as recited is therefore an obvious modification within the preferred diameter and span taught by Blatter.
As to claim 16, while not exemplified, Blatter suggests forming the polyester from dols including ethylene glycol and terephthalic acid, and thus polyethylene terephthalate is an obvious choice from the monomers recited (3:45-50).
Claim(s) 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0052768 (“Lee”) as evidenced by US 6,632,891 (“Tada”).
The discussion of Lee with respect to claim 1 is incorporated by reference.
As to claims 13 and 14, Lee teaches example with d50 of 62.8 micrometers, which is within the recited range. While Lee does not disclose d10 and d90 of this example, Lee teaches the same example having a span of 0.69, within the range of claim 14. It is calculated therefore that d90-d10 is approximately 43 micrometers, such that d10 must be in a range from 19 up to 62.8 micrometers, and d90 must be in the range of greater than 62.8 to 106, which substantially overlap the recited ranges o claims 13 and 14. It is therefore reasonable to presume the three values are in the recited ranges of claims 13 and 14.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights