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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 area objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1-12 lack status identifiers. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Letko et al (US2018/0046076).
Letko sets forth a three-dimensional printing photocurable composition includes from 20 wt. % to 70 wt. % of an urethane acrylate component, from 20 wt. % to 60 wt. % of a multifunctional epoxide component, from 1 wt. % to 15 wt. % of a monomer component, and from 1 wt. % to 8 wt. % of a photoinitiator component, based on the total weight of the composition, which is deemed to anticipate the composition of claim 1—[0003]. Said urethane acrylate component is deemed to anticipate the claimed “first monomer”. Said urethane acrylate component is the reaction product that includes the capping reaction product of an acrylate and an isocyanate terminated prepolymer, wherein said isocyanate-terminated prepolymer is the reaction product of a polyisocyanate and at least one polyol having a molecular weight of at least 3000 g/mol, wherein said polyol is a polyether polyol—see [0008] and [0014]. The polyurethane is the reaction product of a polyether polyol, a polyisocyanate and a hydroxy capped acrylate—see [0013]- [0022].
Regarding claims 1-2: Letko explicitly sets forth a composition comprising 47.6 wt. % of a urethane acrylate; 33.3 wt. % of an epoxide resin 1; 9.5 wt. % of epoxide 2; 4.8 wt. % of 1,6-hexanesiol diacrylate; 1.9 wt. % of Irgacure 184 (photoinitiator); and 2.8 wt. % of a triarylsulfonium salt photoinitiator, wherein the urethane acrylate (corresponding to first monomer) is the reaction product of a toluene diisocyanate blend; a DMC-catalyzed polypropylene diol having a functionality of 2; an unsaturation of 0.0 meq/g; and a molecular weight of 8014 g/mol based on the hydroxyl value(corresponding to the polyether polyol in claim 1)—see [0037]; [0043]; example 7; and table 1. It is deemed the total number of moles of polyether polyol and the group reactive with the isocyanate group of the compound having (meth) acryloyl groups is equal to the moles of the isocyanate groups of the polyisocyanate—see [0039]- [0040] and [0015].
Regarding claim 3: The obtained urethane acrylate does not comprise any ethylene oxide groups, thus claim 3 is anticipated, wherein 50 % or less includes 0 %.
Regarding claim 5: Said monomer component in the resin composition is (meth) acrylate monomer having six carbon atoms (hexanediol diacrylate).
Regarding claim 6: Said composition of example 1 comprises 52.4 wt. % of the urethane acrylate (first monomer—polyether polyol-containing urethane (meth)acrylate) and hexanediol diacrylate (second monomer—(meth) acrylic compound).
Regarding claim 7: Letko sets forth the polyether polyol is obtained by using DMC based catalyst—see [0014]. While Letko does not expressly set forth said polyether is obtained by ring opening polymerization as specified in claim 7; claim 7 is a product by process claim; therefore, “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of the product does not depend on the method of production. Therefore, it the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process—see In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 967 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 8: Said composition are used to obtain a 3D printed article using SLA and SLS stereolithography techniques, wherein said techniques include curing by exposure to selected radiation/laser exposure—see [ 0006], [0050] and [0005] and figure 1.
Regarding claims 9-10: Letko does not set forth the ratio set forth in claim 9 nor the Tg in claim 10; however, Letko sets forth a resin composition which anticipates the claimed resin composition, as well as having an elongation at break of 179 %. Therefore, the claims should inherently have the same ratio and Tg as claimed. The courts have upheld “products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If applicants are of the position that the prior art does not, in fact, possess the same properties as the claimed composition, the claimed composition should be amended to distinguish itself from the prior art--In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
Regarding claim 11: Letko sets forth a resin composition comprising 47.6 wt. % of a polyether polyol-containing urethane acrylate monomer having an unsaturation of 0.007 eq/mg and mol. Weight of 4007 g/mol based on the OH value; 42.8 wt.% of an epoxide 1; 4.8 wt. % of hexanediol diacrylate; 1.9 wt. % of photoinitiator 1 and 2.8 wt. % of photoinitiator 2. Said composition has an elongation at break of 179 %
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Letko (cited above).
Letko is deemed to anticipate the composition of claims 1-11 as sited above. Letko does not expressly set forth obtain artificial organs or an organ model from the compositions. However, Letko sets forth said obtained articles are flexible. It would have been within the skill level of an ordinary artisan to obtain models, such as organs for teaching purposes in absence of evidence to the contrary and/or unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANZA L MCCLENDON whose telephone number is (571)272-1074. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, Heidi Riviere-Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/SANZA L. McCLENDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
SMc
Prosecution Insights