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 .
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 1-2, 4-9 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodgers (US 2014/0141166) in view of Rolland, et al. (WO 2017/112682 using US 10,639,844 for references).
In reference to Claim 1, Rodgers discloses a method of printing a 3D part with an additive manufacturing system ([0006]) (a process for forming a 3D printed article), comprising the steps of the 3D part is printed onto a flexible polymeric film ([0052]) (a) placing a polymer film or sheet between a build plate and an article to be printed), the film can be the same material as the 3D printed material ([0134]) the material is miscible ([0042]-[0043]) (wherein said polymer film or sheet is compatible, miscible or semi-miscible with said article in its melt state), the material has a Tg of about 55-95°C ([0102]) with the material printed about 120-130°C and the material is bonded to the film ([0120]) (Examiner would interpret the film’s Tg to be lower than the material’s and the material’s Tg is 50°C below the print temperature, therefore, where said film or sheet has a Tg lower than 50°C below a printing temperature); heating the area ([0117]) (b) increasing or decreasing the temperature of the build plate, once the film is applied); printing a 3D part ([0116]) (c) printing the 3D printed article on the polymer film or sheet).
Rodgers does not disclose the build plate comprises glass, or a polymer film or sheet has a thickness ranging from 30 µm to 10 cm.
Rolland discloses the plate could be glass (19:1-6) (the build plate comprises glass or metal) and the film will have a thickness of 0.1-100 mm (19:20-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the method of Rodgers by using the build plate of glass of Rolland because the plate should releasable but strong enough to hold the 3D object (19:20-63). One would have been motivated to complete the Rodgers’ method using the Rolland glass plate to release the 3D object. The reasonable expectations of the glass plate of Rolland for the method of Rodgers will be a film used for releasability as well as stability.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the method of Rodgers by using the film thickness of Rolland because the film should not stick but be strong enough to hold the 3D object (19:20-63). One would have been motivated to complete the Rodgers’ method using the Rolland film thickness to release the 3D object. The reasonable expectations of the film thickness of Rolland for the method of Rodgers will be a film used for releasability as well as stability.
In reference to Claim 2, Rodgers discloses the process of Claim 1, as described above.
Rodgers discloses the preferred polymer chains are amorphous ([0079]) and amorphous chains have little or no order ([0046]) with the material structure with the interface of the support or printed layer ([0120]-[0122]) (the polymer film or sheet and the 3D printed article are configured to have entangled polymer chains at an interface).
In reference to Claim 4, Rodgers discloses the process of Claim 1, as described above.
Rodgers does not disclose said film or sheet has a thickness ranging from 1 cm to 5 cm.
Rolland discloses a film thickness from 0.1-100 mm (19:20-23) (said film or sheet has a thickness ranging from 1 cm to 5 cm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the method of Rodgers by using the film thickness of Rolland because the film should not stick but be strong enough to hold the 3D object (19:20-63). One would have been motivated to complete the Rodgers’ method using the Rolland film thickness to release the 3D object. The reasonable expectations of the film thickness of Rolland for the method of Rodgers will be a film used for releasability as well as stability.
In reference to Claim 5, Rodgers discloses the process of Claim 1, as described above.
Rodgers discloses heating the system to about 100-145°C ([0117]) (the step of increasing or decreasing the temperature of the build plate comprises increasing or decreasing the temperature of the build plate to a temperature between 60°C and 120°C).
In reference to Claim 6, Rodgers discloses the process of Claim 1, as described above.
Rodgers discloses using a semi-crystalline polyamide ([0120]) (said 3D printed article comprises a crystalline or semi-crystalline polymer selected from the group consisting of polyvinylidene fluoride homopolymer and copolymers, polyamides, polypropylene, polyether ether ketone, polyether ketoneketone).
In reference to Claim 7, Rodgers discloses the process of Claim 6, as described above.
Rodgers discloses the semi-crystalline polyamides may include caprolactam ([0067]) (said crystalline or semi-crystalline polymer is polyvinylidene fluoride homopolymer and copolymers, and said film or sheet is selected from the group consisting of poly(meth)acrylate homopolymer or copolymers, polycaprolactone, and polylactic acid films).
In reference to Claim 8, Rodgers discloses the process of Claim 6, as described above.
Rodgers discloses the film can be a base layer of the same material being used for printing ([0134]) using a semi-crystalline polyamide ([0120]) (said crystalline or semi-crystalline polymer is a polyamide, and said film or sheet is selected form the group consisting of amorphous polyamides or copolyamides, low melting block polyether-amides, and polyamide grafted polyolefin).
In reference to Claim 9, Rodgers discloses the process of Claim 6, as described above.
Rodgers discloses the material can be a polypropylene ([0097]) (said crystalline or semi-crystalline polymer is a polypropylene)
Rodgers does not disclose said film is selected from the group consisting of polyethylene, and anhydride grafted polyolefin.
Rolland discloses the film is made of Teflon (19:47-63) (said film is selected from the group consisting of polyethylene, and anhydride grafted polyolefin).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the method of Rodgers by using the material of the film of Rolland because the film should not stick but be strong enough to hold the 3D object (19:20-63). One would have been motivated to complete the Rodgers’ method using the Rolland film material to release the 3D object. The reasonable expectations of the film thickness of Rolland for the method of Rodgers will be a film used for releasability as well as stability.
In reference to Claim 11, Rodgers discloses the process of Claim 6, as described above.
Rodgers discloses the material can be 25% by weight of filler ([0094]) and the film can be a base layer of the same material being used for printing ([0134]) (said film or sheet comprises up to 40 weight percent of polymer phases that are not miscible, compatible or semi-compatible with said 3D printed article).
In reference to Claim 12, Rodgers discloses a method of printing a 3D part with an additive manufacturing system ([0006]) (a process for forming a 3D printed article), comprising the steps of the 3D part is printed onto a flexible polymeric film ([0052]) (a) placing a polymer film or sheet between a build plate and an article to be printed), the material is miscible ([0042]-[0043]) (wherein said polymer film or sheet is compatible, miscible or semi-miscible with said article in its melt state), , and with the material printed about 120-130°C and the material is bonded to the film ([0120]) (Examiner would interpret the film’s Tg to be lower than the material’s and the material’s Tg is 50°C below the print temperature, therefore, where said film or sheet has a Tg lower than 50°C below a printing temperature); the consumable filament comprising a polyamide blend of at least one semi-crystalline polyamide, and at least one amorphous polyamide (Abstract, example Nylon 6, Tm~223°C) the support material is a acid-based, water or alkaline solution-soluble support material ([0065] example PVA, Tm~59°C) (polymer film or sheet has a Tg or Tm at least 10°C less than a material of the 3D printed article) and printing a 3D part ([0116]) (b) printing the 3D printed article on the polymer film or sheet).
Rodgers does not disclose wherein said polymer film or sheet has a thickness ranging from 30 µm to 10 cm.
Rolland discloses a film thickness from 0.1-100 mm (19:20-23) (wherein said polymer film or sheet has a thickness ranging from 30 µm to 10 cm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the method of Rodgers by using the film thickness of Rolland because the film should not stick but be strong enough to hold the 3D object (19:20-63). One would have been motivated to complete the Rodgers’ method using the Rolland film thickness to release the 3D object. The reasonable expectations of the film thickness of Rolland for the method of Rodgers will be a film used for releasability as well as stability.
In reference to Claim 13, Rodgers discloses the process of Claim 12, as described above.
Rodgers does not disclose the build plate comprises glass or metal
Rolland discloses the plate could be glass (19:1-6) (the build plate comprises glass or metal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the method of Rodgers by using the build plate of glass of Rolland because the plate should releasable but strong enough to hold the 3D object (19:20-63). One would have been motivated to complete the Rodgers’ method using the Rolland glass plate to release the 3D object. The reasonable expectations of the glass plate of Rolland for the method of Rodgers will be a film used for releasability as well as stability.
In reference to Claim 14, Rodgers discloses the process of Claim 12, as described above.
Rodgers discloses the material can be 25% by weight of filler ([0094]) and the film can be a base layer of the same material being used for printing ([0134]) (said film or sheet comprises up to 40 weight percent of polymer phases that are not miscible, compatible or semi-compatible with said 3D printed article).
In reference to Claim 15, Rodgers discloses a method of printing a 3D part with an additive manufacturing system ([0006]) (a process for forming a 3D printed article), comprising the steps of the 3D part is printed onto a flexible polymeric film ([0052]) (a) printing a polymer film or sheet on a build plate); heating the system to about 100-145°C ([0117]) (b) increasing or decreasing the temperature of the build plate, once the film is applied); and printing a 3D part ([0116]) (c) printing the 3D printed article on the polymer film or sheet); the film can be the same material as the 3D printed material ([0134]) the material is miscible ([0042]-[0043]) (wherein said polymer film or sheet is compatible, miscible or semi-miscible with said article), and with the material printed about 120-130°C and the material is bonded to the film ([0120]) (Examiner would interpret the film’s Tg to be lower than the material’s and the material’s Tg is 50°C below the print temperature, therefore, where said film or sheet has a Tg lower than 50°C below a printing temperature) (wherein said film or sheet has a Tg lower than 50°C below a printing temperature) the consumable filament comprising a polyamide blend of at least one semi-crystalline polyamide, and at least one amorphous polyamide (Abstract, example Nylon 6) the support material is an acid-based, water or alkaline solution-soluble support material ([0065] example PVA) (the polymer film or sheet is formed from a different material than the 3D printed article).
In reference to Claim 16, Rodgers discloses the process of Claim 15, as described above.
Rodgers does not disclose the build plate comprises glass or metal
Rolland discloses the plate could be glass (19:1-6) (the build plate comprises glass or metal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the method of Rodgers by using the build plate of glass of Rolland because the plate should releasable but strong enough to hold the 3D object (19:20-63). One would have been motivated to complete the Rodgers’ method using the Rolland glass plate to release the 3D object. The reasonable expectations of the glass plate of Rolland for the method of Rodgers will be a film used for releasability as well as stability.
In reference to Claim 17, Rodgers discloses the process of Claim 15, as described above.
Rodgers discloses printing with a nozzle ([0059]) (the step of printing a polymer film or sheet on a build plate comprises printing with at least first nozzle).
In reference to Claim 18, Rodgers discloses the process of Claim 15, as described above.
Rodgers discloses printing with a dual nozzle system ([0059]) (the step of printing the 3D printed article on the polymer film or sheet comprises printing with at least a second nozzle).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose the specific combination of printing with semicrystalline polyether ketoneketone (PEKK) or polyether etherketone (PEEK), onto a film or sheet selected from the group consisting of an amorphous PEEK, amorphous PEKK and polyethelimide.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the amendments overcome the prior art of record, however Examiner respectfully disagrees and responds above for each amended claim.
Applicant’s argument pertaining the film’s thickness are directed beyond the scope of the claim, because the prior art of record supplies the proper thickness, the claim is met. The claim can be amended to include the preferred stickiness.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KELSEY C GRACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST, Friday 7:00 AM - 11:00 AM EST.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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.
KELSEY C. GRACE
Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights