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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 7/30/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the amended claims are not met by Farrugia (US 2021/0070993) which was relied upon the examiner to establish lack of unity. This is not found persuasive because a new reference is relied upon below to render obvious instant claims 1-8.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/30/2026.
Specification
The abstract is objected to because of the following informalities: it uses improper language such as “The present invention, “The invention,” and “said.”
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to because both the thermoplastic polymer and the sulfonate have antecedent basis, the leading “a” should be replaced with “the” or “said”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 7, the term “the thioether” lacks antecedent basis.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 limits the chain to one comprising “ester, amide, acid, alcohol, nitrile and/or aldehyde.” The term “and/or” extends the scope of claim 1 which requires “at most one” of those groups. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Querol Esparch (US 2020/0115574) in view of evidence provided by Abolins (US 4,681,906).
With respect to claims 1, 2, and 4-6, Querol Esparch discloses a 3D printing composition comprising a polymeric powder build material comprising a thermoplastic powder composition comprising a5 least 50 wt % polyolefin and additives such as fillers (abstract). Querol Esparch teaches that the build material composition is formed by dry mixing polymer powder and charging agent to suppress tribo-charging and other additives (paragraphs 0100 and 0103-0104), wherein the charging agent can be alkane sulfonate, e.g., HOSTASTAT® HS 1, added in an amount of greater than 0 to 5 wt % (paragraph 0100). While Querol Esparch does not teach the specific structure of HOSTASTAT® HS 1 , Abolins provides evidence that HOSTASTAT HS1 is a sodium salt of lauryl sulfonate (Table 1, footnote (b)) which reads on claimed formula R-SO3X when R is a linear aliphatic hydrocarbon chain having 12 carbon atoms and X is alkali metal sodium.
Querol Esparch does not exemplify a single embodiment or disclose with sufficient specificity so as to anticipate polymeric powder build material comprising polymer powder and sodium salt of lauryl sulfonate.
Even so, Querol Esparch clearly teaches adding a charging agent such as a sodium salt of lauryl sulfonate as beneficial to the polymeric powder build material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the sodium salt of lauryl sulfonate to form a polymer powder like claimed.
With respect to claim 3, Querol Esparch teaches that the polypropylene block copolymer has a crystallization peak temperature and there is semi-crystalline (paragraph 0026).
With respect to claim 8, Querol Esparch teaches that the polymer build material has volume-weighted mean diameter (Dv50) of 5-100 μm (paragraph 0088).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Querol Esparch (US 2020/0115574) in view of evidence provided by Abolins (US 4,681,906) as applied to claims 1-6 and 8 above, and further in view of Fukuda (US 11,306,194).
Querol Esparch discloses adding antioxidants in an amount of 0.1-1 wt % (abstract) that can be an organic sulfide (paragraph 0093) but fails to disclose specific thioethers.
Fukuda discloses a polyolefin-based resin composition that can be used as 3D printer materials (like Querol Esparch) (abstract; col. 11, lines 5) and teaches that suitable sulfur-based antioxidants include dilauryl thiopropionate, distearyl thiodipropionate, dimyristyl thiodiopropionate, and pentaerythritol-tetra(β-dodecylmercaptopropionate) (col. 7, lines 44-53).
Given that Querol Esparch is open to adding organic sulfide antioxidants to its polyolefin composition and further given that Fukuda teaches that an effective antioxidant for its polyolefin composition includes claimed DLTDP, DSTDP, DMTDP, and pentaerythritol-tetra(β-dodecylmercaptopropionate), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize any of these antioxidants in the polymeric powder build material of Querol Esparch. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICKEY NERANGIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2701. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST, Monday - Friday.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571)272-1130. 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.
/Vickey Nerangis/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
vn
Prosecution Insights