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 § 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.
Claims 28 – 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite.
Regarding claims 28 & 29, said claims depend from the independent base (method) claim 23, which details said method according to steps I, II & III. Ambiguity arises in both claims from the phrase, “…cured resin obtainable or obtained after step…” (Claims 28 & 29, line(s) 1, resp.) Regardless of the descriptors “photo-cured resin” and “thermally cured resin” (Claims 28 & 29, resp.), indefiniteness is introduced as “obtainable” and “obtained” imply two different outcomes. “Obtainable” implies another step or further action is required, where “obtained” means no further action is required as the outcome (i.e., cured resin) has been obtained.
Regarding claims 30, claim 30 depends from the independent claim 28, inheriting all its limitations and ambiguity. Therefore, claim 30 is similarly rejected.
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 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 16 – 21, 23, 24 & 28 – 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Meisenheimer et al. (US 2021/0032392 A1) in view of Klun et al. (US 2021/0163664 A1).
Regarding claims 16, 17, 19 & 22, Meisenheimer teaches semifinished products obtained from a reaction mixture that contains ethylenic double bonds and isocyanate groups by radical polymerization of the ethylenic double bonds. Said semifinished products may be further converted to plastic via polyaddition reactions of said isocyanate groups (Abstract). The reaction mixture may include components A – E, where component A is an isocyanate and component C is a trimerization catalyst (p. 1, [0013]-[0014]). Components that may be further included in said mixture are components F (p. 8, [0109] & G (p. 9, [0118]).
Component A is preferably a polyisocyanate with an NCO group functionality of at least 2 (p. 2, [0026]) and preferably comprises 10-40 wt.% uretdione, isocyanurate, allophanate, biuret or iminooxadiazinedione (p. 4, [0048]). Preferred polyisocyanates are disclosed (p. 4, [0049]) and have a preferred molecular weight of 140-400 g/mol. This reads on compound B in the instant application.
Component F may be a free radical photoinitiator or any thermal initiator (p. 9, [0116]-[0117]). This reads on compound C in the instant application.
Meisenheimer teaches the invention further involves at least one trimerization catalyst (p. 13, Claim 1).
Component B is preferably a (meth)acrylate and may be component B1 or B2 or B3, with preference given to component B being comprised of B1 and B2 (p. 5, [0060]-[0061]). Various examples of compounds suitable for use as B1 are provided, such as hexyl (meth)acrylate (p. 5, [0066]).
Various examples of compounds suitable for use as B2 (compounds having 2 (meth)acrylate groups) are provided, such as hexane-1,6-diol di(meth)acrylate (p. 5, [0067]). When component B is comprised of B1 & B2, components B1 & B2 are present in a mass ratio in the range of 10:1 – 1:10 (p. 5, [0065]).
Meisenheimer places great emphasis on increasing the viscosity as much as possible, ranging from 100% increase up to 10,000% increase (p. 1, [0018]).
Meisenheimer does not teach the equivalent molecular weight of the (meth)acrylate compound being 500 g/mol or greater, as required by the claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Klun teaches 3D printed articles including the reaction product of a photopolymerizable composition. The composition comprises a (meth)acrylate monomer, an isocyanate and a catalyst (Abstract). The isocyanate may be a polyisocyanate (p. 7, [0080]). Klun provides structures for suitable urethane acrylates (p. 10 & 33, for example), all of which have at least 2 acrylate groups.
Klun expressly states the number average molecule weight (Mn) of the polycarbonate diol, or average Mn of the polycarbonate diols, is greater than 1,000 g/mol (p. 8, [0088]). Klun provides a table of suitable polycarbonate diol based polyurethane (meth)acrylates (p. 34, Table 2). Once functionalized with acrylate groups, the overwhelming majority of diols listed read on the limitation for the (meth)acrylate-functional compound (A) of the instant application having an equivalent molecular weight of at least 500 g/mol or greater, as required by the claim.
Klun provides an idealized structure for a hexane diol based polycarbonate diol which has been reacted with HEA and HEMA (p. 33, [0348], [0349]).
Klun expressly states higher molecular weight polyurethane (meth)acrylates will result in higher viscosity resin formulations with comparable compositions and loading (p. 9, [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select any of the (meth)acrylate functionalized polyurethane diols with a molecular weight of at least 1,000 g/mol taught by Klun, and employ it as component B2 in Meisenheimer’s invention, as Meisenheimer expressly discloses higher viscosities are more desirable, further aligning with Klun who discloses the benefits of high viscosities. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
The modified composition as described above will be free of NCO-reactive components.
Modification of Meisenheimer in view of Klun as detailed above reads on all limitations established by claims 16, 17 & 19.
Regarding claim 18, maintaining the modification of Meisenheimer in view of Klun previously detailed, Klun provides an idealized structure for a hexane diol based polycarbonate diol which has been reacted with HEA and HEMA (p. 33, [0348], [0349]), shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
130
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the structure above, the central polycarbonate diol reads on [POLYOL], the HEMA terminal groups read on [ACRYL], as required by the claim. The isophorone diisocyanate (IPDI) in the structure does not read on [ISO] because [ISO] must be aliphatic, as required by the claim. However, when discussing suitable diisocyanates for the invention, Klun teaches IPDI in parallel with HDI (p. 7, [0079]).
It would have been obvious to substitute the IPDI portion of the structure above with HDI, as Klun recites both IPDI and HDI in parallel as suitable for the same purpose and capacity. It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents where the equivalence is recognized by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.06.
Modification in this way reads on all limitations established by claim 18.
Regarding claim 20, maintaining the modification of Meisenheimer in view of Klun previously detailed, Klun teaches photoinitiators and/or thermal initiators may be included in amounts of 0.1-5 wt.%, with respect to the polymerizable components (p. 6, [0068]-[0070]). The catalyst is present in amounts of 0.01-5 wt.%, with respect to the polymerizable components (p. 8, [0092]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 21, maintaining the modification of Meisenheimer in view of Klun previously detailed, Klun teaches a ratio of the polyisocyanate to (meth)acrylate in the range of 1.3:1 to 4:1 (p. 6, [0074]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claims 23, 28 – 30, maintaining the modification of Meisenheimer in view of Klun previously detailed, said modification teaches a resin abiding by the limitations established by claim 16. The ethylenic double bonds present in the composition are crosslinked via free radical polymerization and stored under conditions such that the isocyanate addition reaction proceeds very slowly, if at all (p. 9 & 10, [0130]-[0132]). These disclosures correspond to and read on steps (I) & (II), as required by claim 23. The radically curable semifinished resin product resulting from these steps thus reads on the resin as required by claim 28, and finished articles produced therefrom read on the article as required by claim 30.
Crosslinking of the isocyanate groups is preferably effected at temperatures of 50°C-300°C until a finished product is obtained (p. 10, [0139], [0142], [0145]). This disclosure corresponds to step (III), as required by the claim and the finished product obtained thereby reads on the thermally cured resin of claim 29. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 24, maintaining the modification of Meisenheimer in view of Klun previously detailed, Meisenheimer teaches an embodiment the invention impregnated into a fiber matrix (p. 9, [0127]-[0129]).
Claims 22 & 25 – 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Meisenheimer et al. (US 2021/032392 A1) in view of Klun et al. (US 2021/0163664 A1) in further view of Achten et al. (US 2018/133953 A1).
Regarding claim 22, maintaining the modification of Meisenheimer in view of Klun previously detailed, Meisenheimer teaches the use of a trimerization catalyst, however, neither Meisenheimer nor Klun teach tin(II)ethyl hexanoate as said catalyst, as required by the claims.
In the same field of endeavor, Achten teaches processes for producing an object from a precursor via additive manufacturing (Abstract). Achten teaches isocyanate trimerization catalysts suitable for this use are octoates of various metals and provides tin octoate as a viable example thereof (p. 6, [0069]). Tin octoate is also known as tin(II)ethyl hexanoate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the trimerization catalyst in Meisenheimer, with the trimerization catalyst (i.e., tin(II)ethyl hexanoate) taught by Achten, as Achten teaches this to be a suitable trimerization catalyst in compositions intended for printing articles via additive manufacturing. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Modification of Meisenheimer in view of Klun in further view of Achten as detailed above reads on all limitations established by claim 22.
Regarding claims 25 & 26, maintaining the modification of Meisenheimer in view of Klun in further view of Achten previously detailed, Klun teaches additive manufacturing and Meisenheimer teaches a semi-finished intermediate product but is silent on specific additive manufacturing methods like DLP and SLA.
In the same field of endeavor, Achten teaches processes for producing an object from a precursor via additive manufacturing (Abstract). Compositions taught by Achten comprise polyisocyanate (p. 4 & 5, [0057], a trimerization catalyst (p. 5, [0058]) and (meth)acrylates (p. 5, [0059]). Achten teaches stereolithography (SLA) and digital light processing (DLP) as production methods therefore (p. 2, [0024], [0027]).
As compositions taught by Achten are substantially similar to compositions taught by modifying Meisenheimer in view of Klun, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select either SLA or DLP or both additive manufacturing methods taught by Achten, and employ said production methods when making the modification of Meisenheimer in view of Klun, as Achten expressly teaches said additive manufacturing methods for compositions substantially similar, if not identical, to result of modifying Meisenheimer in view of Klun and to that which is claimed. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Modification of Meisenheimer in view of Klun in further view of Achten as detailed above reads on all limitations established by claims 25 & 26.
Regarding claim 27, maintaining the modification of Meisenheimer in view of Klun in further view of Achten previously detailed, when discussing production conditions, Achten teaches the preferable temperature range of 90°C – 190°C and is maintained for a time in the range of 1 – 12 hours (p. 6, [0078]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAAN ROELOFSE whose telephone number is (571)272-2825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 EST.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571)270-7733. 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.
/CHRISTIAAN ROELOFSE/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights