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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 11, 18, 19, and 23 are objected to:
Because claims 7, 11, 18, 19, and 23 are missing a period at the end of each claim sentence.
MPEP 608.01(m): “Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in Paragraph [0011], there are several typographical errors.
“it” to “is”: the sentence “unfused powder can tend to remain hard and it difficult to remove…” should read ““unfused powder can tend to remain hard and is difficult to remove…”
“build” to “built”: the sentence “It may require use of bead blasting to remove the powder from the build parts” should read “It may require use of bead blasting to remove the powder from the built parts.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
Figures 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 3C,4A, and 4B are objected because of the following reasons:
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the figures 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4A, and 4B are illegible and not of sufficient quality to permit examination. Accordingly, replacement drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to this Office action. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled "Replacement Sheet" in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c) ) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.[AltContent: rect]
Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Applicant is given a shortened statutory period of TWO (2) MONTHS to submit new drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.81. Extensions of time may be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a) but in no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133 ). Failure to timely submit replacement drawing sheets will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
Claim Interpretation
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d)
Claims 15 and 16 both recite “The polymer powder composition of claim 13 (or 15), wherein the temperature to heat treat the polymer composition is between 10 Celsius below the lowest of the polymorph melting peaks and the lowest of the polymorph melting peaks.”
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 15 and 16 are rejected to under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for a lack of clarity and improper terminology because of the following informalities:
Both Claims 15 and 16 recite the absolute shorthand text “10 Celsius”. The omission of the word “degrees” renders the unit expression mathematically and textually improper within standard patent nomenclature.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12 is rejected to under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for defective antecedent basis.
Claim 12 recites “The polymer powder composition of Claim 9…”. However, Claim 9 describes “The method of preparing…” rather than a “composition” itself. This is a mismatch in claims, leading to Claim 12 being lack of a proper antecedent basis for “The polymer powder composition”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Applicant is suggested to submit an amendment for Claim 12 to read “The method of preparing the polymer powder composition of Claim 9…” or like, or clarifying the dependency chain accordingly.
Claims 1 is rejected to under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for defective antecedent basis.
MPEP 2173.05(b) states: “A claim may be rendered indefinite when a limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined. That is, where the elements of a claim have two or more plausible constructions such that the examiner cannot readily ascertain positional relationship of the elements, the claim may be rendered indefinite. See, e.g., Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential) and Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989).”
Claim 1, line 3 teaches “a polymer composition” and it is unclear whether applicant is referring to two polymer compositions.
Claim 1, lines 8-9 “the temperature being between…” lacks of antecedence because the claim previously discusses two temperature types. It should be “the temperature to heat treat being…”.
Claim 1 line 12 “said temperature” is also unclear on which of the previous two types of temperatures is being discussed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0198134 A1 (Bertelo et al.), hereafter referred as “Bertelo”.
Claim 1
Bertelo explicitly discloses a method of preparing a polymer powder composition (“heat treatment” of a “polymer powder” (Abstract) that is explicitly suitable for Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) (“…Selective Laser Sintering…”, paragraphs [0024], [0046]).
Bertelo provides a polymer composition comprising at least two polyetherketoneketone (PEKK) polymorphs ([0011], [0017], [0019], [0031]) with different melting peaks, including a “lowest melting polymorph” and “highest melting polymorph”, each of the polymorphs having different melting peak (272oC vs. 297oC (Paragraph [0038]), the polymer composition having a melting temperature range between a lower temperature and an upper temperature (inherently, the polymer composition has a melting range from lower to upper temperatures), each of the melting peaks of the polymorph falling within the melting temperature range (the PEKK Bertelo uses, OXPEKKTM-SP POLYETHERKETONEKETONE, consists of two polymorphs by T:I = 60:40 (Paragraphs [0037, [0038]), such that the lowest melting temperature of the composition (Tm1 = 272oC ~ 273oC) corresponds to the low temperature range end of the lowest melting polymorph of the composition, the highest melting temperature of the composition corresponds to the high end of the highest melting point polymorph (Tm2 = 297oC) and the melting peaks of both polymorphs are within the melting range of the composition) ([0038], Table 1);
determining a temperature to heat treat the polymer composition (“heat treatment temperature”, Table 1), the heat treatment temperature being between 250oC and the lowest of the polymorph melting peaks (e.g., “260oC/5hr” column 6 of Table 1; or “283oC/5hr, Column 7, Table 1). The temperature of 260oC is numerically between 250oC and the lowest melting peak of 273oC (250oC < 260oC < 273oC),
subjecting the polymer composition comprising at least two semi-crystalline polymorphs to said temperature being between 250oC, and the lowest of the polymorph melting peaks for a period of time (e.g., “260oC/5hr” column 6 of Table 1, or “283oC/5h, Column of Table 1) that decreases the melting temperature range of the polymer composition (“By heat treating the powders, the melting range…can be narrowed and refined…” (Paragraph [0045]); “powders with high quantities of high melting crystalline…” (Paragraph [0047]), this directly corresponds to the instant case’s narrowing the melting span via a phase crystalline transition “… a heat treatment … fully transformed the polymorphs as desired.” (Paragraph [0089], Applicant).
Claim 2
Bertelo anticipates Claim 2 by disclosing the method of preparing the polymer powder composition of Claim 1, wherein the temperature to heat treat the polymer composition is between the lower temperature of the melting temperature range of the polymer composition (i.e., “heat treatment” is “within the melting range at least one or all of the lower-melting crystalline polymorph(s) or “a temperature that is at or above the melting point of at least one or all of the lower melting crystalline polymorph(s) and below the melting point of the highest melting crystalline form” (Paragraph [0026]), inherently covering temperatures spanning from the lower initiation temperature of the baseline melting range up to the peak of the lowest melting polymorph, Tm1 ).
Claim 3
Bertelo anticipates Claim 3 by explicitly teaching a heat treatment spanning at 260oC for a polymer composition whose lowest melting peak is 273oC (Table 1). The heat treatment temperature of 260oC is precisely within 13oC below the lowest polymorph peak (Table 1).
Claim 13
Claims 13 recites a PEKK powder composition made by the process steps outlined in Claim 1. This is a “Product-by-Process” claim which lacks novelty because the structure/product itself is identical to a prior art product, as stated above, regardless of processing/manufacturing methods. Bertelo explicitly discloses the physical product: a heat-treated PEKK powder suitable for Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) with a narrowed melting range and changed crystallinity, i.e., polymer morphology ([Paragraphs [0009], [0038], [0045]). Therefore, the polymer composition or product of Claim 13 lacks novelty over Bertelo.
Claim 14
The polymer powder composition made by the process of Claim 14 is anticipated by Bertelo’s disclosure of heating “within the melting range of the lowest melting polymorph” (Paragraph [0026]), which inherently and structurally covers the temperatures just below the melting point of the lower melting polymorph that are also above the lower temperature of the melting range of the composition, inherently includes temperatures below the melting peak of the lowest melting polymorph peak.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 4-7 and 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by US 2017/0198134 A1 (Bertelo et al.), hereafter referred as Bertelo.
Claims 4 and 15-16
Bertelo discloses a heat treatment temperature “within or above the melting range of at least one or all of the lower-melting crystalline polymorph(s)…” (Paragraph [0026]), and Table 1 providing working examples at 260oC, i.e., 13oC below the peak; and 283oC, i.e., 10oC above the lowest peak.
While Bertelo does not explicitly disclose a standalone example of polymer composition between 10oC below the lowest peak, i.e., 263oC, and the peak itself 273oC, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before an effective filing date of the invention to optimize the heat treatment range between 263oC and 273oC because Bertelo does disclose that higher heat treatment temperatures benefit the crystallization kinetics (Paragraphs [0026], [0027], [0028]). Selecting and optimizing a temperature closer to the peak (preferably within 10oC) represents a routine optimization process in an effort to achieve the set goal such as faster crystallization of the PEKK powder composition (Paragraph [0029]).
MPEP 2144.05 II –
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 5-7
Bertelo does not explicitly disclose: 1) that the melting temperature range of the polymer composition is decreased by at least 20% (Claim 5, Applicant), 2) that the melting temperature range of the polymer composition is decreased so that it is 100oC or less (Claim 6, Applicant) or 3) that the melting temperature range of the polymer composition is decreased so that it is 60oC or less (Claim 7, Applicant).
Bertelo does disclose that polymorphic heat treatment results in a polymer powder that has a “consistent, uniform melting range” (Paragraph [0009]) and that the melting range is “narrowed and refined” (Paragraph [0045]). Bertelo further discloses that complete conversion to the higher melting polymorph is successfully achieved (100% T polymorph, Form I) with processing at elevated heat treatment temperatures such as 260oC or 283oC, which inherently results in the greatest narrowing of the melting temperature range of the polymer composition (Table 2, Example 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to maximize conversion to the higher melting polymorph such that the polymer melting temperature range is decreased as much as possible, such as by 20% and/or to less than 60°C, for the purpose of narrowing the melting range of the polymer powder composition as much as possible for a PEKK T:I composition ([0029], [0039]) for "superior powder management'' in a SLS bed ([0041]). This would have been a naturally scaling up of the duration and temperature of heat treatment to minimize the melting span down to less than 60oC or by a margin greater than 20%.
MPEP 2144.05 I –
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)
Claims 17-19
Bertelo discloses that polymorphic heat treatment results in a polymer powder that has a “consistent, uniform melting range” (Paragraph [0009]) and that the melting range is explicitly “narrowed and refined” (Paragraph [0045]). Bertelo further demonstrates that complete crystallization conversion to Form I (100% of the highest melting form) is achieved when processing at high heat treatment temperatures such as 285oC (Table 2, Example 3). Although Bertelo does not explicitly frame its results in terms of the specific numerical data claimed by the Applicant, such as a “decreased by at least 20%” range (Claim 17), or “60oC or less” (Claim 19), “100oC or less” (Claim 18), complete phase conversion to a single polymorphic form, such as Form I, inherently minimizes overlapping multi-peak melting curves, driving the melting range down to its minimum. It is well established that claiming such a specific numerical range or percentage efficiency that is inherently achievable by routine practicing of the prior art and does not impart patentable weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to maximize conversion to the higher melting polymorph such that the polymer melting temperature range is decreased as much as possible, such as minimizing the melting span down to less than 60oC or by a margin of 20%, for the purpose of narrowing the melting range of the polymer powder composition as much as possible for a PEKK T:I composition ([0029], [0039]) for ''superior powder management" in a SLS bed ([0041]).
Claims 20-21
These two claims add a limitation stating that the PEKK powder composition, claimed in the Claim 18, has been “previously been subjected to a heating load”. These non-structural process histories do not impart a distinguishable structural difference onto the material itself. The properties of a polymer powder composition are evaluated based on its final structural parameters (e.g., morphology, melting points, etc.). The novelty of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the claim is the same as a product in the prior art, the claim is indistinguishable even though the prior art was made by a different process. Because Bertelo teaches how to structurally manage and refine identical T:I ratio of 60:40 and 80:20 PEKK grades to optimize the melting behaviors for reuse and recycle, arriving at the claimed physical polymer powder state is obvious.
Claims 22-23
Claim 22 recites the chemical formulas for the T and I isomers of PEKK,
PNG
media_image1.png
90
276
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where A is a p,p'-Ph-O-Ph- group, Ph is a phenylene radical, B is p- phenylene, and D is m-phenylene, wherein the T:I isomer ratio is in the range of from 50/50 to 90/10, and Claim 23 recites this to 60:40. Bertelo explicitly discloses the identical chemical definitions for Isomer T (Formula I) and Isomer I (Formula II), including the precise notation for the p,p'-Ph-O-Ph- group, p-phenylene, and m-phenylene backbones (Paragraph [0017]). Furthermore, Bertelo explicitly discloses the preferred T:I isomer ratios as ranging from 50:50 to 90:10, and highlighting “60:40” (OXPEKKTM-SP) as its primary illustrative embodiment (Paragraphs [0017], [0038]). Therefore, Bertelo explicitly teaches these structural parameters.
Claim 12 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bertelo in view of the NPL literature reference “Melting temperature versus crystallinity: new way for identification and analysis of multiple endotherms of poly(ethylene terephthalate” by Ronkay et al. (hereafter referred to as “Ronkay”)
Claim 12
Regarding Claim 12, modified Bertelo discloses the [method of preparing the] polymer powder composition of Claim 9.
Bertelo fails to explicitly disclose that the step of determining the temperature to heat treat the polymer composition comprises a step of deconvoluting an endothermic melting peak of the polymer composition to determine the melting temperature range of the polymer composition and to determine the melting peak of each of the polymorphs. Bertelo does suggest determining melting range and peaks with DSC ([0026]).
Ronkay directly addresses the analytical issue of overlapping multiphase melting profiles in polymers. Ronkay teaches a DSC technique including a step of deconvoluting (to distinguish overlapping peaks; ''...three small intensity peaks were detected after deconvolution...", page 12, part 2, Lines 10-11), an endothermic melting peak of polymer composition (page 3, part 3, Line 2) to determine the melting temperature range of the polymer composition and to determine the melting peak of each of the polymorphs in a polymer ("Multiple endotherm peaks...", Abstract; "...different melting peaks...", page 3).
As a result, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill at the time of filing date of the invention to modify Bertelo with DSC including deconvolution of Ronkay for the purpose of determining melting range and peaks of the polymer powder composition by a suitable DSC that can distinguish overlapping peaks, as implied by Bertelo [0026]
Claim 24
Regarding Claim 24, modified Bertelo discloses the polymer powder composition of Claim 21.
Bertelo discloses that the melting range and specific melting peaks of individual polymorphs can be identified using tools “such as DSC and X-ray diffraction” (Paragraph [0026]).
While Bertelo does not explicitly explain the steps of “deconvoluting” DSC endothermic curves via curve-fitting models, Ronkay directly addresses this analytical problem of over-lapping multi-phase melting profiles in polymers. Ronkay teaches utilizing Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) technique coupled with mathematical “deconvolution” to separate overlapping DSC’s endothermic curve peaks, allowing a user to distinguish individual melting peaks and establish precise phase-transition boundaries (Abstract, Page 10/17).
A person with ordinary skill in the art would look to implement Bertelo’s explicit instruction to locate the specific melting points of individual lower polymorphs ([Paragraph [0026]) and to apply the analytical protocols. Because the melting profiles of multiple PEKK polymorphs are well known to overlap, it would be naturally obvious to apply Ronkay’s peak “deconvolution” methods to Bertelo’s DSC protocol, in an effort to accurately locate the peak maximum of the lowest polymorph (e.g., Tm1), providing the precise upper melting points then allowing to successfully practice the heat treatment appropriately. The novelty of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the claim is the same as a product in the prior art, the claim is indistinguishable even though the prior art was made by a different process or analyzed in a different way.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Bertelo in view of US 10,000,022 B2 by DeFelice (hereafter referred to as “DeFelice”).
Claim 8
Regarding Claim 8, modified Bertelo discloses the method of preparing the polymer powder composition of claim 6, wherein the polymer composition has previously been subjected to a heating load ("recyclable back into the next bed," [0046]) in a first selective laser sintering build process having a bed temperature (" ... bed of powder is preheated...", [0046]).
Bertelo fails to explicitly disclose that the bed temperature is between the lowest of the polymorph melting peaks and the highest of the polymorph melting peaks determined prior to the first selective laser sintering building process.
Bertelo just provides the thermal baseline framework (heating between the lower and upper melting peaks) to “narrow and refine” ([0045]) the melting range, and relies on high-level operational parameters rather than step-by-step DSC “deconvolution” process.
DeFelice explicitly details analytical verification protocols and mathematical models for high-performance polyamide and polyarylateetherketone (PAEK/PEKK family polymers). It teaches utilizing precise baseline integration metrics, validating enthalpy ranges to confirm structural uniformity and measuring absolute phase transitions to ensure the material is structural optimized for powder bed fusion.
DeFelice teaches that the bed temperature is between the lowest of the polymorph melting peaks and the highest of the polymorph melting peaks determined prior to the first selective laser sintering building process (i.e., a first recycle PEKK powder from a fresh PEKK powder with bed temperature of 285°C (Column 3, Lines 45-46) (273°C < 285°C < 297°C, Table 1, Bertelo).
A person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) practicing Bertelo’s phase refinement would be motivated to integrate the precise analytical testing methods or protocols taught by DeFelice. Doing so would allow an operator to verify that the target enthalpy reduction and polymorphic purity levels required for successful SLS printing have actually been achieved, rather than relying on a trial-and-error approach of oven heat durations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bertelo with the bed temperature of DeFelice for the purpose of preheating the powder composition to reduce laser power, and to minimize thermal stresses and warping during the SLS build process, by ensuring a more even heat distribution throughout the powder.
Claim 9
Regarding Claim 9, modified Bertelo discloses the method of preparing the polymer powder composition of claim 6, wherein the polymer composition has previously been subjected to a heating load ("recyclable back into the next bed," [0046]) in a second selective laser sintering build process having a bed temperature (" ... bed of powder is preheated...", [0046]).
Bertelo fails to explicitly disclose that the bed temperature is between the lowest of the polymorph melting peaks and the highest of the polymorph melting peaks determined prior to the first selective laser sintering building process and that the composition was subjected to a second SLS build process.
DeFelice teaches that the bed temperature is approximately 300°C for first and second recycling (Fig. 1) and is determined experimentally by incrementally increasing bed temperature by 1°C from 15°C below the melting temperature to find the onset of fusion of layers (i.e. inherently occurring at the onset of the highest of the polymorph melting peaks, (Column 4, Lines 33-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bertelo with the precise analytical testing protocols and bed temperature taught by DeFelice for the purpose of preheating the powder composition in a second recycling, to reduce laser power, and to minimize thermal stresses and warping during the SLS build process, by ensuring a more uniform heat distribution throughout the powder composition.
Claim 10
Regarding Claim 10, modified Bertelo discloses the method of preparing the polymer powder composition of claim 9, wherein the polyetherketoneketone comprises repeating units represented by Formulas I and II (Claim 1):
PNG
media_image2.png
83
274
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where A is a p,p'-Ph-O-Ph- group, Ph is a phenylene radical, B is p-phenylene, and D is m-phenylene, wherein the T:I isomer ratio is in the range of from 50/50 to 90/10), thereby forming said heat-treated polymer composition. (Bertelo Claim 11).
Claim 11
Regarding Claim 11, modified Bertelo discloses the method of preparing the polymer powder composition of claim 10, wherein the T:l ratio is 60:40 (T:1=60:40, [0038]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERARD SHI whose telephone number is (571)270-3101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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 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.
/G.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1765
/HEIDI R KELLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights