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 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.
Claims 1-4, 16-18 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rudisill et al. (WO 2017/069778).
Regarding claim 1, Rudisill et al. discloses a 3D printing method including a polymeric composite building material including polymer particles as a powder bed. (Abstract, par. [0007], [0012] and [0018]). A fusing agent composition is applied to the polymer particles (Abstract) and includes a plasmonic resonance absorber which converts absorbed radiation to heat (i.e. radiation absorber) (par. [0026]), water (par. [0031]-[0032]) and a co-solvent such as triethylene glycol in amounts of 10-80 wt%. (par. [0035]-[0036) as well as specific co-solvent amount of 20 wt% in Table 1 which teaches the present range with sufficient specificity as to anticipate the claim. (MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding claim 2, the radiation absorbing material includes metal nanoparticles (par. [0028]-[0029]) or carbon black. (par. [0091])
Regarding claims 3 and 25, the polymer particles include PA66, PA9, PA11, PA12, PA6/12, polyethylene, polyurethane, polypropylene, polyester, polycarbonate and polystyrene. (par. [0012]).
Regarding claim 4, the radiation absorbing material includes carbon black (par. [0091]) and the polymer particles include PA12 (par. [0012] and [0091]).
Regarding claim 16, triethylene glycol is used in amounts of 10-80 wt%. (par. [0035]-[0036) as well as specific co-solvent amount of 20 wt% in Table 1 which teaches the present range with sufficient specificity as to anticipate the claim. (MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding claims 17-18, the amount of plasmonic resonance absorber is in an amount of 1-20wt% of the total weight of the fusing agent. (par. [0030]).
Regarding claim 23, the polymer particles have diameters in the range of 5-100 microns. (par. [0015]).
Regarding claim 24, the melting point of the polymer particles is in the range of 50-400oC. (par. [0014]).
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.
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 19, 22 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudisill et al. (WO 2017/069778)
Regarding claim 19, Rudisill et al. discloses using one or more co-solvents in combination wherein the total amount of co-solvents is in the range of 10-80wt%. (par. [0036]). The amount of each co-solvent would therefore have been a matter of routine optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art so long as the total amount falls within the range taught by Rudisill et al. to obtain the benefits from the inclusion of the co-solvent in the fusing agent composition.
Regarding claim 22, as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Rudisill et al. discloses: triethylene glycol is used in amounts of 10-80 wt%. (par. [0035]-[0036) as well as specific co-solvent amount of 20 wt% in Table 1, one or more co-solvents in combination wherein the total amount of co-solvents is in the range of 10-80wt%. (par. [0036]) and therefore the specific amount of each co-solvent would therefore have been a matter of routine optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art, an amount of plasmonic resonance absorber is in an amount of 1-20wt% of the total weight of the fusing agent (par. [0030]) wherein the radiation absorber may include carbon black (par. [0091]), one or more additives such as a surfactant in an amount of 0.1-3wt% (par. [0035]) and a water-based vehicle (par. [0032]) which would therefore cover the balance of the fusing agent composition.
Regarding claim 26, the polymer particles may include ceramic particles (i.e. filler particles in an amount of 1-20wt% (par. [0013]), therefore the ceramic particles are included in an amount up to 1/5th the content of the polymer particles.
Claims 5 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudisill et al. (WO 2017/069778) in view of Emamjomeh et al. (WO 2016/171724).
Rudisill et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Rudisill et al. does not disclose a detailing agent.
Emamjomeh et al. disclose a detailing agent for 3D printing which reduces the degree of coalescence bleed by reducing the temperature of the powder bed (Abstract and par. [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a detailing agent in the 3D printing composition of Rudisill et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a detailing agent in Rudisill et al. for the purpose of reducing coalescence bleed to provide an improved 3D printed object.
Regarding claim 20, the detailing agent includes a co-solvent including propylene glycol methyl ether and ethylene glycol butyl ether. (par. [0044]).
Regarding claim 21, the content of water in the detailing agent is at least 85wt% due to the amounts of the other components: colorant, surfactant, co-solvent and balance of water (par. [0034]) (1-3wt% colorant: Abstract, 0.1-5wt% surfactant: par. [0043] and 1-20wt% co-solvent: par. [0044]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 09/10/2025