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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-16 and 24-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/19/2025.
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 17-19, 21-22, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steele US 20180009982A1 in view of Abbott US 20180147777A1.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Steele teaches a polyamide powder (Title). Steele teaches the polyamide powder of embodiment 1 and 13 comprises 94-99% polyamide (Paragraph [0115] and Paragraph [0146]). This overlaps with the claimed range of 60-99% by weight polyamide. Steele also teaches the composition comprises less than 10% of an electro-magnetic radiation absorber (Paragraph [0090]. However, Steele is silent on the identity of the electromagnetic radiation absorber.
Abbott teaches 3D printing using a powder build material that may be a polyamide (Paragraph [0018]). Abbott also teaches that this polyamide powder may include magnetite as an EMR absorber (Paragraph [0064]). Steele teaches the polyamide powders are used in 3D printing applications (Paragraph [0003] and [0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Steele and Abbott to use magnetite as the EMR absorber because this represents an EMR absorber identified by Abbott as being suitable for use in applications similar to Steele. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.07
Magnetite reads on the claimed magnetic detection additive. The amount of less than 10% overlaps with the claimed range of 1-40% of magnetic detection additive.
Steele also teaches the composition comprises 2.5-40 wt% of a flow agent (Paragraph [0118]). This overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1-4.5wt% of a flow agent. Steele also teaches the polyamide powder comprises a D10 20-35 microns, a D50 of 45-70 microns and a D90 of less than 120 microns (Paragraph [0135]). This overlaps with the claimed range of D50 of 35-55 microns, D10 of 15-25 microns, D90 of less than 80-100 microns.
Regarding claim 19, Steele teaches a method of forming polyamide powder where a natural polyamide powder is compounded with a carbon black polyamide (Table 3). Carbon black is a pigment so this reads on the claimed detection additive. This reads on the limitations of claim 19.
Regarding claim 21, Steele teaches a relative solution viscosity of 1.4-2.0 measured according to the same ISO standard as is recited in the claim, ISO307 (Paragraph [0060]). The range of 1.4-2.0 overlaps with the claimed range of 0.9-1.4. This reads on the limitations of claim 21. Alternatively, Steele in view of Abbott results in a composition identical to the claimed composition and will therefore necessarily possess the claimed physical property. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 22, Steele teaches that the delta T of the composition is greater than 45C (Paragraph [0042]). This overlaps with the claimed range of 30-50C.
Regarding claim 33, claim 33 is defined in terms of product-by-process, specifying a previous intended use of a portion of the polyamide-based powder. The claim does not appear to impart any physical or compositional distinction between the fresh polyamide powder and recovered polyamide powder.
When a product recited in product-by-process format reasonably appears to be the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the burden is on applicant to show that the prior art product is in fact different from the claimed product, even though the products may be made by different processes. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
The product-by-process limitation in question does not appear to contribute additional structure to the claimed product and therefore need not be explicitly taught by the prior art in order to be taught by Steele in view of Abbott.
Steele teaches a relative solution viscosity of 1.4-2.0 measured according to the same ISO standard as is recited in the claim, ISO307 (Paragraph [0060]). The range of 1.4-2.0 overlaps with the claimed range of 0.9-1.4. This reads on the limitations of claim 21. Alternatively, Steele in view of Abbott results in a composition identical to the claimed composition and will therefore necessarily possess the claimed physical property. See MPEP 2112.01.
Claims 20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steele US 20180009982A1 in view of Abbott US 20180147777A1 in further view of Diekman US 20180093925 A1 as evidenced by Cobalt Blue: Technical Analysis and Applications of a High-Performance Composite Inorganic Pigment (retrieved on: <https://www.zpigments.com/cobalt-blue-technical-analysis-and-applications-of-a-high-performance-composite-inorganic-pigment/#:~:text=and%20Chemical%20Stability-,I.,for%20outdoor%20and%20harsh%20environments> retrieved from: 1/5/2026).
Regarding claims 20 and 23, Steele teaches the composition can comprise a colorant or pigment but Steele is silent on the type of color imparting compound (Paragraph [0117]). Steele teaches the amount of colorant ranges from 0-5wt%. This overlaps with the claimed range of 0.05-5%.
Diekman teaches a polyamide powder used for sintering applications (Title). Steele teaches the polyamide powder can be used in sintering applications (Paragraph [0032]). Diekman teaches the composition can comprise from 0.05-5% of flow aids (Paragraph [0026]). Diekman teaches the polyamide powder can also comprise pigments and dyes (Paragraph [0024-0025). Diekman also teaches the composition can comprise metal powders that enhance magnetic properties (Paragraph [0027]).
Diekman teaches a similar polymer powder composition used in similar applications. Diekman teaches a colorant can be cobalt blue (Paragraph [0025]). Cobalt blue is a compound that comprises a spinel structure (Cobalt Blue: A Technical Analysis, Page 1). Diekman teaches a suitable colorant used in similar applications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select cobalt blue as the pigment in Steele’s composition as Diekman recognizes it as being suitable for use in the same capacity in similar compositions with similar end uses. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
As addressed in claim 1, Steele in view of Kirschvink also teaches the composition comprises less than 10% of an electro-magnetic radiation absorber which is magnetite (Steele, Paragraph [0090] and Kirschvink, Abstract). This overlaps with the claimed range of 1-40%.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILY K SLOAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30 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, 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.
/LILY K SLOAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762