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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group 1, claim 1-16 in the reply filed on 07/07/2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 18-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1-2 and 4-9 are currently under examination on the merits.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 4-6 and 8 are rejected as being vague and indefinite because the content range by weight as claimed does not have a base for the percentage. In this office action, it is taken that the content percentage is based on total weight of the polypropylene polymer. Claims 2-3, 5-7 and 9-16 are also rejected for depending from claim 1.
Claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite because the melt flow rate as recited does not associate with its measurement condition such as temperature and loading. Without reciting measurement conditions, the scope of the melt flow rate as claimed is not clear. In this office action, it is taken that the measurement temperature is 230°C and loading is 2.16 kg as disclosed in the present specification. Claims 2-16 are also rejected for depending from claim 1.
Claim 13 is rejected as being vague and indefinite because the content range by weight as claimed does not have a base for the percentage. In this office action, it is taken that the content percentage is based on total weight of the polymer composition including polypropylene and other components.
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 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.
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 1-5 and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over De Palo et al (US 2019/0112732, ‘732 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1-5, 8 and 15, ‘732 discloses a polymer material for a three-dimensional extrusion printing system ([0006]), wherein the polymer material can be a filament or rod having diameter of 1.75 or 3 mm ([0016]) being feed stock having a size and shape suitable for feeding to a three-dimensional printing system. The feed stock comprises a polymer composition comprising a polypropylene polymer in an amount greater than about 60% by weight ([0042]-[0045], majority component is polypropylene), and the polypropylene polymer is a polypropylene random copolymer of propylene as a primary monomer and a comonomer of ethylene with a content of from about 3% to 12% by weight ([0007], [0012]); a melt flow rate up to 20 g/10 min ([0008], [0013]); and xylene soluble content of from about 3% to about 30% by weight ([0009], [0014]).
Regarding claims 9-14 and 16, ‘732 discloses that the polypropylene polymer is a simi-crystalline polymer ([0019]-[0020]), which inherently satisfies all the limitations of present claims 9-10 and 13. ‘732 also discloses that the composition further includes a filler such as talc in 10 wt% ([0022], [0045]), a nucleating agent or/and a processing aid ([0021]).
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over De Palo et al (US 2019/0127890, ‘890 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1-8 and 15, ‘890 discloses a polymer material for a three-dimensional extrusion printing system ([0006]), wherein the polymer material can be a filament or rod having diameter of 1.75 or 3 mm ([0018]) being feed stock having a size and shape suitable for feeding to a three-dimensional printing system. The feed stock comprises a polymer composition comprising a polypropylene polymer in an amount greater than about 60% by weight ([0042]-[0046], majority component is polypropylene), and the polypropylene polymer is a polypropylene terpolymer of propylene as a primary monomer and comonomers of ethylene and butene with a content of ethylene preferably from about 1.0 to 15% by weight ([0015]), content of butene preferably from 3.0 to 18.0 wt% ([0016]), thus total comonomer content can be 4.0 to 33 wt%; a melt flow rate up to 20 g/10 min ([0007], [0011]); and xylene soluble content of from about 3% to about 30% by weight ([0008], [0013]).
Regarding claims 9-14 and 16, ‘890 discloses that the polypropylene polymer is a simi-crystalline polymer ([0021]-[0022]), which inherently satisfies all the limitations of present claims 9-10 and 13. ‘890 also discloses that the composition further includes a filler such as talc in 10 wt% ([0024], [0046]), a nucleating agent or/and a processing aid ([0023]).
Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Chae et al (US 2016/0122570). Chae et al discloses a polymer composition for 3D printing comprising a polypropylene including a propylene-ethylene copolymer having melt flow rate of up to 30 g/10M min ([0010]-[0022]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7934. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Arron Austin can be reached on 571-272-8935. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/RUIYUN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights