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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejection of claim 12 in invalid because “the Office action provides no evidence that Liu’s impact modifier may function in a similar manner [to the claimed matting agent]”, but this is moot. The rejection now relies on Liu in view of Goldacker to meet the claimed matting agent. Liu teaches 10-15 % of a matting agent but does not disclose the type of matting agent, [0070]. Goldacker teaches a (meth)acrylate-based matting agent [0021].
Regarding claims 25, the newly added claims are rejected in view of newly cited Goldacker. See rejection below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 filed on 2/24/2026 has been entered.
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 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2020/00325323), in view of Goldacker (US 2007/0066708 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Lui meets the claimed 3D printed article, (material extrusion additive manufacturing process for producing the acrylic articles [0001]) wherein said article comprises two or more different domains of thermoplastic material, (Liu teaches the filament has a middle layer composition of the acrylic alloy, surrounded by a sheath containing a different acrylic composition, for example containing a special effects additive, [0062]) wherein said domains are present in the bulk of the article, and wherein said domains are also present on the surface of the printed object, (Examiner notes that both the bulk and surface would include both the middle layer and sheath composition when printed with the multiple layer filament described in [0062] of Liu).
Liu further meets the where at least one of the domains is the polymer composition (Para [0009]-[0011] a polymer matrix blend comprising one or more acrylic polymers having a weight average molecular weight of from 50,000 to 300,000...and preferably 9 to 40 weight percent of one or more low viscosity polymers), and from 0.1 to 50 wt%, of a matting agent (Para [0070] Sample 4 acrylic copolymer without a high molecular weight component, having 10-15 % of a matting agent)
Liu does not teach from 30 to 99.9 weight percent of a thermoplastic polymer resin matrix (Liu teaches an overlapping range: Para [0070] 25-35% polylactic acid).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amount of polymer in the ratio of thermoplastic resin to matting agent in the composition through routine experimentation to achieve the claimed amount 30-99.9%, in order to optimize the flexibility and flow properties, while retaining transparency and strength, see [0007].
Liu does not teach the matting agent to be polymeric matting agent and wherein said polymeric matting agent has a number average particle size as determined by laser diffraction particle size analysis of from 700 nm to 200 micrometers.
Liu teaches using acrylate or methacrylate build materials [0023].
Goldacker teaches [0021] a (meth)acrylate-based matting agent [0064] the matting agent b) may, for example, be prepared by means of emulsion polymerization and, prior to incorporation into the matrix a), have a median particle size in the range from 100 nm to 10 um, laser extinction methods may be used to determine the particle size, and also the particle size distribution. Examiner notes the claimed product is not limited by the method of measuring particle sizes, see MPEP 2113.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to vary the particle size of Liu to meet the claimed 700 nm to 200 micrometers in order to optimize the silken-matt surface structure and mechanical properties, e.g. tensile strength or tear-propagation resistance, see Goldacker [0021].
Regarding claim 23, Liu as modified meets the claimed printed article of claim 12, wherein said polymeric matting agent is selected from the group consisting of acrylic copolymers, (Goldacker teaches [0021] a (meth)acrylate-based matting agent) styrenic copolymers, acrylic/styrenic copolymers, polyamides, copolyamides, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), linear and crosslinked silicones, silsesquioxane silicones obtained via hydrolysis and polycondensation of organotrialkoxysilanes, and tetraalkoxysilanes.
Regarding claim 24, Liu as modified meets the claimed 3-D printed article of claim 12, wherein polymeric matting agent is configured to provide a matt surface on the article. (Goldacker teaches [0021] a (meth)acrylate-based matting agent).
Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2020/00325323) in view of Goldacker (US 2007/0066708 A1), in further view of Xu et al. (US 2016/0068696 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Liu as modified teaches the 3-D printed article of claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12).
Liu does not explicitly state wherein said 3-D printed article has a surface gloss ratio (SGR) of from 0.5 to 10.0 as measured on a 3-D printed article without any additional post-printing treatment.
Liu teaches acrylic polymers are well known for their clarity, sparkling color, surface gloss, see [0005].
Xu teaches curable material comprises one or more species of (meth)acrylates, [0007], and a surface of a composite build material, when cured exhibits a specular reflectance gloss of at least about 15 gloss units (GU), [0067], and composite build materials having specular reflectance gloss values described herein can exhibit reflective surfaces that, in some embodiments, can approximate or mimic the reflectivity of a metal surface, thereby permitting 3D articles formed from the composite build material to have a metallic appearance, see [0067]. Xu teaches the method of 3D printing does not comprise painting, coating, or plating the exterior surface of the article. Thus, as described further hereinbelow, a method described herein can form 3D articles having a metallic finish or surface appearance provided directly by the build material itself, [0012].
It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 ( Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. in re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to vary the surface gloss of the 3D printed object of Liu to achieve the claimed SGR of 0.5 to 10 because Xu teaches a metallic appearance to be achieved with high gloss and reflectance values that mimics, or substantially matches the color of a metal such as gold or silver, see [0006].
Regarding claim 15, Liu as modified teaches the 3-D printed article of claim 12, (these limitation are met in the rejection of claim 12 above).
Liu as modified does not teach wherein said 3-D printed article has a Reflectance ratio (R) of from 0.95 to 1.05 as measured on a 3-D printed article without any additional post-printing treatment.
Liu teaches refractive index matching additives, additives with specific light diffraction or light reflection characteristic [0046].
Xu teaches exhibits a specular reflectance gloss of at least about 15 gloss units (GU), [0067], and composite build materials having specular reflectance gloss values described herein can exhibit reflective surfaces that, in some embodiments, can approximate or mimic the reflectivity of a metal surface, thereby permitting 3D articles formed from the composite build material to have a metallic appearance, see [0067]. Xu teaches the method of 3D printing does not comprise painting, coating, or plating the exterior surface of the article. Thus, as described further hereinbelow, a method described herein can form 3D articles having a metallic finish or surface appearance provided directly by the build material itself, [0012].
It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 ( Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. in re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to vary the surface gloss of the 3D printed object of Liu to achieve the claimed Reflectance ratio (R) of from 0.95 to 1.05 because Xu teaches a metallic appearance to be achieved with high gloss and reflectance values that mimics, or substantially matches the color of a metal such as gold or silver, see [0006].
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2020/0325323) in view of Goldacker (US 2007/0066708 A1), and in further view of Fenn et al. (US 2020/0361136 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Liu as modified does not teach the 3D printed article of claim 12, wherein said article is selected from the group consisting of an automotive article, building article, construction article, capstock, aeronautic article, aerospace article, photovoltaic article, medical article, computer-related article, telecommunication article, and wind energy article.
Fenn teaches wherein said article is selected from the group consisting of an automotive article, building article, construction article, capstock, aeronautic article, aerospace article, photovoltaic article, medical article, computer-related article, telecommunication article, and wind energy article.(Fenn teaches the additive manufacturing using chemicals to achieve appearance effects such as reflectance, pearlescence, metallic sheen, [0378], examples of 3D printed objects include medical implants, automotive parts (interior or exterior), aerospace parts, [0425].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to use the 3D printed method of Liu to create the medical implant or automotive part of Fenn because reflectance is beneficial for such objects.
Regarding claim 18, Liu as modified does not teach the following limitations.
Fenn teaches the article of claim 12, wherein said article is selected from the group consisting of exterior paneling, automotive body panels, auto body trim, recreational vehicle body panels and trims, exterior panels for recreational sporting equipment, marine equipment, exterior panels for outdoor lawn, garden and agricultural equipment and exterior paneling for marine, aerospace structures, aircraft, public transportation applications, interior paneling applications, interior automotive trims, (automotive parts (interior or exterior), aerospace parts, [0425]) components for head and or tail lights on vehicles, prototyping, interior panels for marine equipment, interior panels for aerospace and aircraft, interior panels for public transportation applications, and paneling for appliances, furniture, and cabinets, recreational vehicle, sporting equipment, marine, aerospace, decking, railing, siding, window and door profiles, dishwasher and dryers, refrigerator and freezers, appliance housing or doors, bathtubs, shower stalls, spas, counters, and storage facilities, decorative exterior trim, molding side trim, quarter panel trim panels, fender and fender extensions, louvers, rear end panels, caps for pickup truck back, rearview mirror housings, accessories for trucks, buses, campers, vans, and mass transit vehicles, b pillar extensions, and the like; appliances and tools such as lawn and garden implements, bathroom fixtures for mobile homes, fencing, components of pleasure boats, exterior components of mobile homes, lawn furniture such as chair and table frames, pipe and pipe end caps, luggage, shower stalls for mobile homes, toilet seats, signs, spas, air conditioner and heat pump components, kitchen housewares, bead molded picnic coolers, picnic trays and jugs, and trash cans; venetian blind components; sporting goods such as sailboards, sailboats; plumbing parts such as lavatory parts and the like; construction components, in addition to those mentioned previously, the additional components including architectural moldings, door molding, louvers, and shutters, mobile home skirting, residential or commercial doors, siding accessories, window cladding, storm window frames, skylight frames, end caps for gutters, awnings, car port roofs, lamp, lighting equipment, sensor, custom carry cash for consumer items, silverware, trim for cars, prototypes, figurines, dentures, hardware, cabinet, ball-joint, hosing, glasses, cage, UV protector screen, signage, toys, medical equipment such as implants and equipment components, lighting appliques, luminaire housing, window coverings, surface modification, visualization aids 3D model based on, medical imaging, architectural models, topographic data, mathematical analysis, or other data sets. Education aids, props, costumes, park benches, robotics components, electrical enclosures, 3D printer components, jigs, fixtures, manufacturing aids, molds, sculptures, statues, board games, miniatures, dioramas, trophies, drones, UAV's, medical devices (Class I, Class II, and Class Ill according to FDA Code of Federal regulations Title 21), diffuser or light diffusing elements, instrumentation, solar cells, fixtures and rigging for solar power generating systems, artificial nails, dosimeters, jewelry, footwear, fabric, firearm components, cell phone cases, and packaging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to use the 3D printed method of Liu to create the medical implant or automotive part of Fenn because reflectance is beneficial for such objects.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Snyder (US 20150352783 A1). Snyder teaches wherein the first region of support material forms a texture or gloss pattern in combination with the first region of build material and/or the second region of build material. In some cases, the texture or gloss pattern is formed from a plurality of selectively deposited dots of the support material, see [0130].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M. ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0467. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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, Sam 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.
/MICHAEL M. ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights