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 Amendment
The amendment filed 09/08/2025 has been entered. Claim 29 has been amended. Claim 30 has been cancelled. Claims 31-40 are new additions. Claims 29 and 31-40 are pending. Applicant’s amendment to the claims have overcome 112(a)/112(b) objection/rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 03/15/2023.
Claim Objections
Claim 35 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim contains an obvious typo by its omission of the term “material” after the “inorganic reinforcing” phrase. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 29, 31-35, 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasue et al. (US 2024/0034834 A1), in view of Noguchi et al. (US 2021/0179848 A1), in view of Imai et al. (US 2013/0295806 A1).
Regarding claims 29, Yamasue discloses it is common to use a powder material in additive manufacturing methods and by example a powder bed fusion printer, see at least [0038], [0106], [0148] – (construed as a method of producing a three-dimensional model object, comprising supplying the resin powder mixture to a 3D printer for powder bed fusion method using a laser beam). The resin powder mixture to include a polyphenylene sulfide-based resin, see [0080] – (construed as a resin powder mixture containing a polyarylene sulfide resin powder).
Yamasue does not provide particulars of the polyarylene sulfide resin prompting one to look for exemplary compositions thereof.
Noguchi discloses a polyphenylene sulfide resin composition – (examiner notes polyarylene sulfide is a well-known and conventional name for polyphenylene sulfide, also known as PPS). The composition to include the characteristics of gas generation in an amount of 0.30 wt% or less, see [0089] – (corresponds to and overlaps 0.25 wt% or less) and a melt flow rate of 5 g/10 min or more and 2,000 g/10 min or less and, see [0088] – (corresponds to and overlaps 5 g/10 min or more and 75 g/10 min or less). The gas generation range being suitable for reducing the occurrence of transfer defects and gas burns, see [0089]. The melt flow range being suitable for obtaining a good water pressure-resistant breaking strength and moldability, see [0088].
Imai discloses a molding material to include a polyarylene sulfide having an average particle size of 0.01 to 100 μm – (corresponds to and overlaps 1 μm or more and 100 μm or less), this being suitable for enhanced dispersibility, see [0266] – [0267].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamasue’s polyarylene sulfide resin to have the claimed gas generation and melt flow rate as taught by Noguchi and the claimed particle diameter as taught by Imai to provide the composition with aforementioned benefits. Concerning the claimed ranges: Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of PPS that corresponds to the claimed ranges. See MPEP 2144.05. Moreover doing so as discussed above provides benefits such as enhanced water pressure-resistant breaking strength, moldability and dispersibility.
Regarding claim 31, modified Yamasue discloses the PPS is supplied in an amount of 51 to 99.5 by weight of the total amount of resin, see Noguchi [0094] – (corresponds to and overlaps 20 parts by weight or more and I 00 parts by weight or less). Concerning the claimed ranges: Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of PPS that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05. Moreover doing so provides a balance between heat and chemical resistance and toughness, see Noguchi [0094].
Regarding claim 32, modified Yamasue does not explicitly disclose the resin mixture contains the polyarylene sulfide resin powder [A] and a polyarylene sulfide resin powder [B]. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the polyarylene sulfide resin powder as a powder [A} and a powder [B], since it has been' held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to provide two compositions of polyarylene sulfide resin powder for the purpose of tailoring the properties of the composition by at least providing the polyarylene sulfide resin powder having differing particle size and characteristics as contemplated by the prior art. That is, as previously discussed, Noguchi’s gas generation in an amount of 0.30 wt% or less and melt flow rate of 5 g/10 min or more and 2,000 g/10 min or less: Allows for a polyarylene sulfide resin powder [A] having a gas generation of 0.25 wt% and a melt flow rate of 75 g/10 min and a polyarylene sulfide resin powder [B] having a gas generation of 0.30 wt% and a melt flow rate of 100 g/10 min. Where doing so is suitable for reducing the occurrence of transfer defects and gas burns, see Noguchi [0089]. The melt flow range being suitable for obtaining a good water pressure-resistant breaking strength and moldability, see Noguchi [0088]. Imai allows for a polyarylene sulfide resin powder [A] having an average particle size of 1 μm and a polyarylene sulfide resin powder [B] having an average particle size of 90 μm. Where doing so is suitable for enhanced dispersibility. Concerning the claimed ranges: Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of PPS that corresponds to the claimed ranges. See MPEP 2144.05. Moreover doing so as discussed above provides benefits such as enhanced water pressure-resistant breaking strength, moldability and dispersibility.
Regarding claim 33, modified Yamasue does not explicitly disclose the resin mixture contains the polyarylene sulfide resin powder [B] in the claimed amount. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the polyarylene sulfide resin powder [B] in the claimed amount, since it has been' held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to provide the polyarylene sulfide resin powder [B] in an amount of 0.1 to 40 wt%, see Imai [0171] – (corresponds to and overlaps 1 part by weight or more and 50 parts by weight or less) for the purpose of providing a material having excellent moldability and handling property, see Imai [0171].
Regarding claim 34, modified Yamasue discloses the use of inorganic fibers such as carbon fiber and glass fibers to include cut and milled, see Yamasue [0086] – (corresponds to the resin powder mixture contains at least one inorganic reinforcing material selected from carbon fibers, glass fibers and glass beads).
Regarding claim 35, modified Yamasue discloses the reinforcing material is provided in an amount of 1% by mass or more and 50% by mass or less, see Yamasue [0088] – (corresponds to and overlaps a weight of 5 wt¾ or more and 40 wt¾ or less). Concerning the claimed ranges: Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of inorganic reinforcing material that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05. Moreover, doing so provides benefit such as suppressing a decrease in the interlayer adhesion of the three-dimensional modeled article.
Regarding claim 38, modified Yamasue discloses the inorganic particles have an average diameter of 10 to 200 nm, see Yamasue [0097] – (corresponds and overlaps 20 nm or more and 500 or less). Concerning the claimed ranges: Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of inorganic reinforcing material that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05. Moreover, doing so provides benefit such as improvement in strength and imparting fluidity.
Regarding claim 39, modified Yamasue discloses the inorganic particles are provided in an amount of 0.1 to 1.0 parts by mass, see Yamasue [0097] – (corresponds and overlaps 0.1 wt% or more and 1.0 wt% or less). Concerning the claimed ranges: Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of inorganic reinforcing material that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05. Moreover, doing so provides benefit such as improvement in printability and flowability.
Claims 36, 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasue et al. (US 2024/0034834 A1), in view of Noguchi et al. (US 2021/0179848 A1), in view of Imai et al. (US 2013/0295806 A1) as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2020/0354528 A1).
Regarding claim 36, modified Yamasue does not explicitly disclose the claimed maximum dimension. Watanabe discloses a polyarylene powder composition suitable for use in a three-dimensional printing system. The powder is configured to use an inorganic reinforcement with a maximum dimension of 1 μm to 400 μm. This being beneficial for improving the strength of the molded part, see [0034] – [0035] – (corresponds to and overlaps a maximum dimension of the inorganic reinforcing material is 1 μm or more and 400 μm or less). Concerning the claimed ranges: Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of inorganic reinforcing material that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05. Moreover, doing so provides benefit such as improvement in strength of the formed part.
Regarding claim 39, moreover, Watanabe further discloses the inorganic particle is a spherical silica, this being beneficial for improved fluidity, see [0027], [0029].
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasue et al. (US 2024/0034834 A1), in view of Noguchi et al. (US 2021/0179848 A1), in view of Imai et al. (US 2013/0295806 A1) as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Kaneko et al. (US 2016/0348282 A1).
Regarding claim 37, modified Yamasue does not explicitly disclose the claimed volume resistivity. Kaneko, discloses it is common to provide resins with a filler such as fibrous carbon, see at least [0002], [0011]. Kaneko further discloses carbon nanofiber is provided having a volume resistivity of 0.030 Ω·cm or less, see [0057] – (corresponds to and overlaps a specific volume resistivity of 20 x 10-4 Ω·cm or less). This being beneficial for increasing the electrical conductivity thereof, see [0057].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Yamasue’s carbon fiber to have the claimed specific volume resistivity as taught by Kaneko to increase the electrical conductivity of the composition as reasonably suggested by Kaneko. Concerning the claimed ranges: Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of carbon fiber volume resistivity that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05. Moreover, doing so provides benefit such as improvement electrical conductivity of the composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16, 29, 31-40 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571) 272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached on (571) 270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights