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 Amendment
Claims 1, 3-6 and 8-19 are pending. Claim 2 has been canceled. Claims 1, 9, 13, and 16-18 have been amended. Claim 19 is new. Claims 9-18 remain withdrawn from examination. Applicant amended claim 1 to add a limitation pertaining to the liquid vehicle for the fusing agent. The previous rejection is withdrawn and a new reference is cited below.
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, 3-6, 8, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (US 2019/0054690) in view of Hartman (WO 2018080537) and Takahashi (US 2020/0338918), with claims 3-4 further evidenced by [0006] of Applicant’s disclosure.
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: a liquid vehicle including water and from 70 wt% to 90 wt% of a cosolvent, based on a total weight of the fusing agent; and from about 0.5 wt% to about 20 wt% benzotriazole radiation absorber solubilized in the 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 for printing ([0116]), Takahashi a fusing agent including: a liquid vehicle including water and from 70 wt% to 90 wt% of a cosolvent, based on a total weight of the fusing agent (water and diethylene glycol monobutyl ether, [0166-67], overlapping range, see MPEP 2144.05); and from about 0.5 wt% to about 20 wt% benzotriazole radiation absorber solubilized in a liquid vehicle ([0122-23], overlapping range, see MPEP 2144.05).
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 a better alternative to an infrared absorber in this technical context (heating the powder) and for that to be benzotriazole because [0123] of Takahashi teaches such a UV absorber and solubilizing it in water and diethylene glycol monobutyl ether ([0166-67] of Takahashi).
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 (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-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-4,6-di-tert-pentylphenol, 2-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-4,6-di-tert-pentylphenol, , 2-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-6-dodecyl-4- methylphenol, Takahashi [0122-23]; as evidenced by [0006] of applicant’s disclosure).
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 (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-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-4,6-di-tert-pentylphenol, 2-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-4,6-di-tert-pentylphenol, , 2-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-6-dodecyl-4- methylphenol, Takahashi [0122-23]; as evidenced by [0006] of applicant’s disclosure).
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-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-4,6-di-tert-pentylphenol, 2-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-4,6-di-tert-pentylphenol, , 2-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-6-dodecyl-4- methylphenol, and a combination thereof (Takahashi, [0122-23]).
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]).
Regarding claim 19, Feng as modified teaches wherein the co-solvent is diethylene glycol butyl ether (diethylene glycol monobutyl ether, Takahashi [0166-67]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed June 17, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-6, and 8 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Takahashi (US 2020/0338918).
Of note, Applicant argues that Feng does not disclose the amount of co-solvent present in the fusing agent as presently claimed. This is persuasive in as far as it goes, but the modification, as presented in the rejection above, has a different light absorbing agent (for UV rather than for infrared) in a solution. Accordingly, Feng’s teachings regarding an infrared absorber in solution would not teach away from the solution as modified in view of Takahashi.
Applicant argues that Hartman does not provide an adequate basis to modify Feng to teach a solution with a UV absorber instead of an infrared absorber. Applicant argues that [0006] of Hartman does not teach NIRD as an equal alternative to a UV light absorber. This argument is not persuasive to the extent, as laid out by Applicant, that Hartman teaches usage of a UV light absorber is a superior option to enable the formation of white parts from white build materials. Applicant is in essence arguing that Hartman teaches a superiority, which only suggests that in view of Hartman, a UV light absorber should be used.
Finally, Applicant argues that Feng in view of Hartman would not suggest the use of a UV absorber on the basis that, having made the modification, the fusing lamp would not be altered from a lamp emitting IR light to one emitting UV light. This argument is not persuasive because it makes too little of Hartman’s teachings to use UV light rather than infrared light, to include both the fusing agent and the type of light delivered for heating.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Olubummo (WO 2021/21624) would be relevant prior art but for the believed co-ownership by Applicant. Applicant is asked to confirm that Olubummo is disqualified as prior art under 35 USC 102(b)(2)(C), see MPEP 2154.02(c).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/EMMANUEL S LUK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights