DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability is withdrawn in view of the rejections below.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 47, 53, 4, 22-25, 43-45, 50-52, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gupta (NPL 20111).
Gupta teaches a core/shell powder for another use that meets the claimed structure -- as claimed. Gupta teaches a core with PEI and a shell with PVOH. This is the claimed structure. Claims to a thing (i.e., not a method) must be differenced from the prior art by clear structural differences.
In reference to claim 1, 5, 47, 53, Gupta discloses a plurality of powder particles (“lyophilized to obtain free flowing powdered microparticles” [Top of Pg. 4]), each including:
a base polymer layer formed of a base polymer material comprising polyetherimide, the base polymer material having a first solubility parameter; and (“PEI 25 kDa, used as a core-modifying agent,” [Section 2.2., bottom of Pg. 3])
a coating polymer layer surrounding the base polymer layer and formed of a coating polymer material that is distinct from the base polymer material, the coating polymer material comprising polyvinyl alcohol (“The primary emulsion was then homogenized with 25 mL of PVA solution (external aqueous phase, EAP)” [Section 2.2., bottom of Pg. 3])
In other words, Gupta forms dry particles that have a PEI modified core and a PVOH outer layer. This is the same as the claimed structure.
Gupta does not form the particles for the same purpose as the claimed invention. Gupta is a pharmaceutical related article and the claim is for a 3D printing feedstock material. Nevertheless, claims to a structure must be distinguished from the prior art structure. Thus, the claim must be rejected because Gupta teaches the same structure as claimed.
The cited prior art does not specifically disclose that the structure has the property or is produced by a process wherein:
the base polymer material is selected to have a first dielectric loss factor with
a first tan value in a predefined microwave frequency range, a first melting point, and a first
solubility parameter;
the coating polymer material is selected to have a second dielectric loss factor
with a second tan value in the predefined microwave frequency range, a second melting point, and second solubility parameter;
the second dielectric loss factor of the coating polymer material is greater than the first dielectric loss factor of the base polymer material;
the second tan value of the coating polymer material is at least about 50 times greater than the first tan value of the base polymer material and thereby more susceptible to heating in response to electromagnetic energy than the base polymer material;
the first melting point is within about 20 degrees Celsius of the second melting point;
the second solubility parameter is within about 10 (Joules/cubic centimeter)0·5 ((J/cc)0·5 ) of the first solubility parameter;
the coating polymer material is applied as a liquid to an exterior of the base polymer material as the base polymer material is advanced through a coating chamber to form the coating polymer layer; and
the coating polymer material is dried on the exterior of the base polymer material within the chamber to form a … powder particle.
However, the cited prior art teaches an identical or substantially identical structure as claimed (the core shell particle structure of the claim). Therefore, the property is presumed to be inherent to the cited prior art. Apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function; and, the structure must be clearly and positively specified.
In reference to claim 4, 22-25, 43-45, 50-52, the cited prior art does not specifically disclose that the structure has the property or is produced by a process as claimed, however, the cited prior art teaches an identical or substantially identical structure as claimed (the core shell particle structure of the claim). Therefore, the property is presumed to be inherent to the cited prior art. Apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function; and, the structure must be clearly and positively specified.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1, 4, 22-25, 43-45, 50-52, 6, 26, 48, 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodgers (US 20210277229 A1).
Rodgers teaches a core/shell powder for 3D printing that meets the claimed structure. Rodgers teaches a core with PEI and a shell. This is the claimed structure. Claims to a thing (i.e., not a method) must be differenced from the prior art by clear structural differences.
In reference to claim 1, Rodgers discloses “A core/shell polymer material suitable for FDM-type three-dimensional printing, comprising:
at least one amorphous polymer as a core particle;
at least one semicrystalline polymer as a shell material surrounding the core particle;” (Claim 1, reading on “coated powder for use in an additive manufacturing process,
the coated powder comprising:
a plurality of powder particles, each including:
a base polymer layer formed of a base polymer material; and
a coating polymer layer surrounding the base polymer layer and formed of a
coating polymer material that is distinct from the base polymer material,” as claimed)
Rodgers further discloses that the core particles is the same composition as the claimed “base polymer layer”; and,
the shell material surrounding the core is the same composition as the claimed “a coating polymer layer surrounding the base polymer layer”.
The cited prior art does not specifically disclose that the structure has the property or is produced by a process wherein:
the base polymer material is selected to have a first dielectric loss factor with
a first tan value in a predefined microwave frequency range, a first melting point, and a first
solubility parameter;
the coating polymer material is selected to have a second dielectric loss factor
with a second tan value in the predefined microwave frequency range, a second melting point, and second solubility parameter;
the second dielectric loss factor of the coating polymer material is greater than the first dielectric loss factor of the base polymer material;
the second tan value of the coating polymer material is at least about 50 times greater than the first tan value of the base polymer material and thereby more susceptible to heating in response to electromagnetic energy than the base polymer material;
the first melting point is within about 20 degrees Celsius of the second melting point;
the second solubility parameter is within about 10 (Joules/cubic centimeter)0·5 ((J/cc)0·5 ) of the first solubility parameter;
the coating polymer material is applied as a liquid to an exterior of the base polymer material as the base polymer material is advanced through a coating chamber to form the coating polymer layer; and
the coating polymer material is dried on the exterior of the base polymer material within the chamber to form a … powder particle.
However, the cited prior art teaches an identical or substantially identical structure as claimed (the core shell particle structure of the claim). Therefore, the property is presumed to be inherent to the cited prior art. Apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function; and, the structure must be clearly and positively specified.
Rodgers does not use the word “dry” however, Rodgers indicates that “the core/shell polymer is used in SLS, HSS, MJF, and electrophotography powder-based 3D-printing applications” (Claim 21). Thus, it is obvious that the particles would be dry. Also, “powder” in this context would be understood to refer to a dry powder by a person of skill in the art.
In reference to claim 4, 22-25, 43-45, 50-52, the cited prior art does not specifically disclose that the structure has the property or is produced by a process as claimed, however, the cited prior art teaches an identical or substantially identical structure as claimed (the core shell particle structure of the claim). Therefore, the property is presumed to be inherent to the cited prior art. Apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function; and, the structure must be clearly and positively specified.
In reference to claim 6, 48, Rodgers discloses “that a component of developing the core/shell particle is optimizing the thickness of the shell versus the diameter of the core. On the one hand, the core needs to be sizable enough to supply the structure of the particle. Conversely, the shell needs to have some degree of thickness so the printing system can handle the polymer powder when it is near the operating window temperature” (P0054). Therefore it would have been obvious to optimize the thickness and diameter and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
In reference to claim 26, see P0013 (e.g., amides and ketones).
In reference to claim 46, see P0013 (“Polyetherimide”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8am-5pm.
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, Xiao 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.
/NICHOLAS KRASNOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
1 Gupta, V. and Ahsan, F., 2011. Influence of PEI as a core modifying agent on PLGA microspheres of PGE1, a pulmonary selective vasodilator. International journal of pharmaceutics, 413(1-2), pp.51-62.
Prosecution Insights