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/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on February 2, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no motivation to combine the cited references because Hartman (WO 2018080537) is not teaching an infrared absorber is an alternative to a UV absorber. This is not found persuasive because both infrared absorbers and UV absorbers, in combination with a radiation source in the respective wavelength range, both absorb radiation and release heat where present. This is exemplified by [0006] of Hartman’s teaching of NIRD doing so with infrared radiation in contrast with using a UV light absorbing agent, [0007].
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-18 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected system, method, or object, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on February 2, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of polyamide particles for species A and 2-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)phenol for species B in the reply filed on February 2, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden. This is not found persuasive because searching for the distinct species requires different text searching queries.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-6 and 8-18 are pending. Claim 5 has been amended. As noted above, claims 9-18 have been withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (US 2019/0054690) in view of Hartman (WO 2018080537) and Ehlis (US 2020/0299459), with claims 3-4 further evidenced by Tinosorb® M (BASF PRD 30482916).
Regarding claim 1, Feng discloses a three dimensional printing kit (material set, abstract), comprising: a build material including from about 80 wt% to 100 wt% polymeric particles (80-99wt% polymer powder including polyamides, [0010-11]) having a D50 particle size from about 10 µm to about 150 µm (50-60 µm, [0011]), wherein the polymeric particles are polyamide (80-99wt% polymer powder including polyamides, [0010-11]); and a fusing agent solubilized in a liquid vehicle (radiation absorber dissolved, [0030]).
Feng does not disclose a fusing agent including from about 0.5 wt% to about 20 wt% benzotriazole radiation absorber solubilized in a liquid vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing by depositing droplets with a radiation absorber on a powder bed (abstract), Hartman teaches delivering a UV absorbing agent in droplets on a bed of particles ([0014]; note that this is an alternative to infrared absorbing agents, [0006-07]).
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of UV absorbing agents ([0045]), Ehlis teaches a fusing agent including from about 0.5 wt% to about 20 wt% benzotriazole radiation absorber solubilized in a liquid vehicle ([0045]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Feng to use a UV absorber instead because [0006-07] of Hartman teaches that a UV absorber is an alternative to an infrared absorber in this technical context (heating the powder) and for that to be benzotriazole because [0045] of Ehlis teaches such a UV absorber as a UV absorber.
Regarding claim 2, Feng as modified teaches wherein the liquid vehicle of the fusing agent includes from about 40 wt% to about 90 wt% of an organic cosolvent (as modified, Ehlis, [0095], overlapping ranges, see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 3, Feng as modified teaches wherein the fusing agent exhibits an absorbance of from about 0.3 to 2 at a wavelength of from about 300 nm to about 500 nm (Methylene Bis-Benzotriazolyl Tetramethylbutylphenol, Ehlis [0081]; as evidenced by Tinosorb, BASF).
Regarding claim 4, Feng as modified teaches wherein the fusing agent exhibits an absorbance of from about 0.3 to 2 at a wavelength of from about 340 nm to about 400 nm (Methylene Bis-Benzotriazolyl Tetramethylbutylphenol, Ehlis [0081]; as evidenced by Tinosorb, BASF).
Regarding claim 5, Feng as modified teaches wherein the benzotriazole radiation absorber is a benzotriazole derivative compound selected from the group consisting of 2-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-4-(1,1,3,3- tetramethylbutyl)phenol, 2-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-4,6-bis(1-methyl-1-phenylethyl)phenol, 2-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-4,6-bis(1-methyl-1-phenylethyl)phenol, 2-tert-butyl-6-(5-chloro- 2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-4-methylphenol, 2-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-4,6-di-tert-pentylphenol, 2-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-4,6-di-tert-pentylphenol, 2,2'-methylenebis[6-(2H-benzotriazol- 2-yl)-4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)phenol], 2-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-6-dodecyl-4- methylphenol, and a combination thereof (Methylene Bis-Benzotriazolyl Tetramethylbutylphenol, Ehlis [0081]).
Regarding claim 6, Feng as modified teaches wherein the polymeric particles are white, transparent, or translucent (Feng [0028]).
Regarding claim 8, Feng as modified teaches a second fluid agent selected from i) a coloring agent that includes a liquid vehicle and a colorant or ii) a detailing agent that includes a detailing compound that reduces a temperature of the build material onto which the detailing agent is applied (Feng [0060]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. [0122] of Takahashi (US 2020/0338918; US 11,117,409) teaches benzotrazole-based UV absorbers including 2-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)phenol in the context of printing. Feng (US 10,913,205) teaches subject matter similar to Feng (US 2019/0054690), cited above. Ehlis (US 11,046,814) teaches subject matter similar to Ehlis (US 2020/0299459), cited above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC whose telephone number is (571)272-6131. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 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, Sam Xiao 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.
/NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744