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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Double Patenting rejections, these rejections have been withdrawn due to the Terminal Disclaimer filed and approved.
Regarding claim 21, the newly claimed limitations have been met by newly cited Kotani. As discussed below, Ng in combination with Kotani meets the claim.
Regarding claims 28-40, the new claims have been met by newly cited prior art, see below.
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.
Claim(s) 21-23, 25, 26, 29, 31-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng et al. (US 2017/0252974 A1) in view of Kotani (US 2018/0147776).
Regarding claim 21, Ng meets the claimed method comprising the steps of: placing base particles into a vessel, (Ng teaches the solution with the polymer 14 is mixed with the inorganic particles 11 during spray coating, see [0030]) wherein the base particles are fluidized using a gas with a controlled flow; (During spray coating, the solution is passed through a jet nebulizer (i.e., atomizer) at high pressure to create a high velocity mist (or aerosol) consisting of the various solution components, in addition to the inorganic particles 11, see [0030]) placing a polymer into a solution (high vapor pressure solvent (e.g., isopropyl alcohol, ethanol, acetone, etc.) as the main carrier., see [0030]) wherein the solvent of the solution serves as a medium to coat the base particle, wherein the polymer is soluble in the solvent of the solution; and spraying the solution into the vessel to coat the base particles. (The inorganic particle 11 acts as a substrate for the polymer nanoparticles or nano-beads to deposit on, see [0030]. An emulsion or dispersion polymerization is performed to form the continuous coating 13′ of the polymer 13 on the inorganic particle 11 as shown in FIG. 2A, see [0026]).
Ng does not teach wherein the base particles comprise one or more of hollow particles and low density particles having a density of 0.02 to 0.6 g/cc.
Kotani teaches wherein the base particles comprise one or more of hollow particles. Kotani teaches inorganic hollow fine particles such as glass balloon; fumed silica and wet process silica [0083], to be used for 3D printing [0001].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to select hollow glass particles as the generic particles of Pfeifer because it imparts light weight and toughening the shaped object, see [0083].
Ng teaches the packing density may range from about 0.35 g/cm3 to about 0.65 g/cm3, see [0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to select and low density particles having a density of 0.02 to 0.6 g/cc because packing density and particle size distribution contributes to the reduction in volume shrinkage and in surface roughness when each layer of the 3D object is exposed to electromagnetic radiation, see [0034].
Regarding claim 22, Ng as modified meets the claimed method of claim 21, wherein the solvent of the solution is non-participatory. (dispersion may be slowly diluted with water to precipitate the polyurethane, see [0028] Examiner notes this meets the definition of “non-participatory” as disclosed in the instant specification to be “participate in the reaction”, see [0044]).
Regarding claim 23, Ng as modified does not teach the claimed method of claim 21, wherein the solvent of the solution is participatory.
Ng teaches that an oil-soluble free radical initiator may also be added, see [0026]. Examiner notes that the free radical initiator results in polymerization, which meets the claimed participatory.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to select a free radical initiator of Ng to be included in the solvent of Ng in order to improve the polymerization, see [0026].
Regarding claim 25, Ng as modified meets the claimed method of claim 21, wherein the solution comprises an organic solution. (high vapor pressure solvent (e.g., isopropyl alcohol, ethanol, acetone, etc.) as the main carrier., see [0030])
Regarding claim 26, Ng as modified meets the claimed method of claim wherein the organic solution comprises water (dispersion may be slowly diluted with water to precipitate the polyurethane, see [0028]).
Regarding claim 29, Ng as modified is silent on the claimed method of claim 25, wherein the organic solution comprises MEK.
Kotani teaches methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) as a suitable solvent [0087].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to replace the solvent of Ng with the solvent MEK taught by Kotani because it performs the intended function as a solvent for producing particles used for 3D printing.
Regarding claim 31, Ng as modified meets the claimed method of claim 25, wherein the base particles comprise a unitary particle type, (Ng teaches mono-modal particle size distribution [0034]) a compound particle, or a particle blend.
Regarding claim 32, Ng as modified meets the claimed method of claim 25, wherein the base particles comprise sacrificial particles. Examiner notes that the claims and specification do not define “sacrificial particle”. The instant specification gives examples such as “may be sacrificial in nature, i.e., may be a hollow or low density particle that is sacrificed in foam formation, such as a glass or polymer bead”, see [0043]. Thus, the particles of Ng as modified by meet the claim because they are hollow particles.
Regarding claim 33, Ng as modified meets the claimed method of claim 25, wherein the base particles comprise microspheres. Kotani teaches inorganic hollow fine particles such as glass balloon; fumed silica and wet process silica [0083].
Regarding claim 34, Ng as modified meets the claimed method of claim 25, wherein the solution comprises an additive comprising one or more of a flow agent, (flow aid(s), [0019]) a lubricant, silica gel, and carbon black.
Regarding claim 35, Ng as modified meets the claimed method of claim 25, wherein the solution comprises a dispersant. (polymeric dispersant [0048])
Regarding claim 36, Ng as modified meets the claimed method of claim 25, further comprising actively drying the coated particles. (Ng teaches spray coating or drying and electropolymerization may be used to obtain the nano-beads 13″, see [0025]).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng et al. (US 2017/0252974 A1) in view of Kotani (US 2018/0147776) and in further view of Hawker (US 2005/0202338 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Ng does not teach the claimed method of claim 23,wherein the participatory solution is at least one of an acid, a base, or a nucleophile.
Ng teaches that an oil-soluble free radical initiator may also be added, see [0026].
Hawker teaches cross-linking polymers including polyurethanes [0029] using chemical activating agents that are suitable including free radical initiators, acids, bases, organic catalysts, organometallic catalysts, metallic catalysts, nucleophiles and electrophiles [0071].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to replace the free radical initiator of Ng with the nucleophile of Hawker because it achieves the intended purpose of polymerization.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng et al. (US 2017/0252974 A1) in view of Pfeifer et al. (US 2006/0251826 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Ng as modified is silent on wherein the organic solution comprises THF.
Pfeifer teaches solvents include tetrahydrofuran (THF), [0044]. Pfeifer teaches materials that can be used for either binder liquid or by laser light sintering 3D printing, see claim 1 of PG Pub. and [0050]. Pfeifer teaches a process of coating particles with the adhesive, [0025], Fig. 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to replace the solvent of Ng with the solvent THF taught by Pfeifer because it performs the intended function as a solvent for producing particles used for 3D printing.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng et al. (US 2017/0252974 A1) in view of Kotani (US 2018/0147776) and in further view of Vontorcik et al. (US 2017/0008233).
Regarding claim 27, Ng does not teach the claimed method of claim 21, wherein the polymer is thermoplastic polyurethane polymer.
Ng teaches generic polyurethanes [0028].
Vontorcik teaches wherein the polymer is thermoplastic polyurethane polymer (TPU). (Vontorcik teaches selective laser sintering, using certain thermoplastic polyurethanes [0002] where the TPU with a Tm of 130 to 200C was found to be best for laser sintering, see [0081].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to select the TPU of Vontorcik to be the generic polyurethane of Ng because it provides an attractive combination of properties thermoplastic polyurethanes and this thermoplastic polyurethane is well suited for solid freeform fabrication [0008], [0081].
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng et al. (US 2017/0252974 A1) in view of Kotani (US 2018/0147776) and in further view of Wright et al. (US 2017/0145155 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Ng as modified is silent on the method of claim 25, wherein the organic solution comprises cyclohexanone.
Wright teaches the powder can be produced by a precipitation process known to one of ordinary skill in the art. For example, the polymeric material can be dissolved in an appropriate solvent such as cyclohexanone, [0122].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to replace the solvent of Ng with the solvent cyclohexanone taught by Wright because it performs the intended function as a solvent for producing particles used for 3D printing.
Claim(s) 37-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng et al. (US 2017/0252974 A1) in view of Kotani (US 2018/0147776) and in further view of Hill et al. (US 2019/0152864 A1).
Regarding claim 37, Ng as modified does not teach the method of claim 36, further comprising repeating the spraying and drying.
Tamoto meets the claimed repeating the spraying and drying. (Hill teaches slip layers may be added and dried repeatedly in an automated process that provides a layered shell on the particle of polymer materials [0050], using a spray drying process [0061], Hill teaches the particles to be used for three-dimensional printing, extrusion, rolling, molding and other forming processes may be used to create three-dimensional green bodies, see [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to repeat the spraying and drying of Ng as taught by Tamoto because it optimizes the resistance to fracture closure stresses and/or hardness and/or toughness and/or fatigue resistance, see [0051].
Regarding claim 38, Ng as modified meets the claimed method of claim 37, further comprising collecting the coated particles. (Ng teaches the above process is used to be used to obtain the nano-beads 13″, see [0025])
Regarding claim 39, Ng as modified does not teach the method of claim 38, further comprising post-processing the coated particles.
Hill teaches further comprising post-processing the coated particles. (Hill teaches after being coated, the bead may be processed through a nozzle and/or a drying chamber and/or an emulsion to separate the beads and cure the coating, [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to perform the post-process drying step as taught by Tamoto because it optimizes the resistance to fracture closure stresses and/or hardness and/or toughness and/or fatigue resistance, see [0051].
Regarding claim 40, Ng as modified meets the claimed method of claim 39, wherein the post-processing comprises additional drying. (Hill teaches after being coated, the bead may be processed through a nozzle and/or a drying chamber, [0061]).
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 MICHAEL M. ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0467. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at (571)270-5343. 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.
/MICHAEL M. ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744