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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Specification
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.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the language “Provided is” and “ The present invention relates to” should be deleted. Also, the abstract should be within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kokubo (JP H05212804 A).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Kokubo teaches ( see abstract, figures , claims and examples) a three-dimensionally fabricated object ( figures and [0023]) obtained by photocuring the resin composition that can be used as a prototype for producing a casting mold.
Examiner notes claim 9 recites product by process language, “obtained by photocuring the resin composition for three-dimensional photofabrication." The resin composition is not a positive recitation in claim 9.
Applicant is reminded of MPEP 2113: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process; determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The three-dimensionally fabricated object of Kokubo has not been shown to be different than the instant claimed three-dimensionally fabricated object.
Examiner suggests deleting the “product by process” language.
The claim language of “for use as a prototype for producing casting mold” is an intended use of the three-dimensionally fabricated object. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416, 417-418; 277 F2d 197 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Watanabe et al. (US 2024/0117097 A1).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Watanabe et al. ( see abstract, figures , claims and examples) teach a three-dimensionally fabricated object ( figures and [0069-0070]) obtained by photocuring the resin composition that can be used as a prototype for producing a casting mold.
Examiner notes claim 9 recites product by process language, “obtained by photocuring the resin composition for three-dimensional photofabrication." The resin composition is not a positive recitation in claim 9.
Applicant is reminded of MPEP 2113: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process; determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The three-dimensionally fabricated object of Watanabe et al. has not been shown to be different than the instant claimed three-dimensionally fabricated object.
Examiner suggests deleting the “product by process” language.
The claim language of “for use as a prototype for producing casting mold” is an intended use of the three-dimensionally fabricated object. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416, 417-418; 277 F2d 197 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 1, 3-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokubo (JP H05212804 A in view of Arishima et al. (JP 2000-109522 A).
Regarding claims 1, 3-8 and 11, Kokubo teaches a resin composition for three-dimensional structure ( see abstract, figures, claims, examples and paragraphs [0004-0019]) discloses the fabrication of a ternary model; selectively curing and coloring hybrid resin are achieved by selecting two types of hybrid resins, respectably carrying resins with different Spectro sensitivities and different polymerization mechanisms, i.e. photo cationic polymeric resin A” and photo radical polymer resin B’ compounded systems containing spectrosensitive photopolymerization initiators A ( cationic) and B ( radical) , respectively, as shown in Figure and meeting the limitation of a reactive material having a molecule thereof an acetal structure and a crosslinkable double bond ( see Examples). The resin composition further comprises a reactive monomer; a non-reactive compound having a melting point of 20°C to 150°C; and a photopolymerization initiator as well as chain transfer agent and polymerization inhibitor ( see Examples and [0016-0017]). Kokubo teaches a method for producing a cast product ( see claims and examples) comprising the step of photocuring the resin composition, investing the 3-dimensionalyl object in an investment material and solidifying the material , removal to form a casting mold and pouring a metal material into the cast mold and solidying the metal material to provide a cast product.
Further regards to claim 1, Kokubo does not explicitly disclose the wherein the reactive material is a reaction product of a compound having two or more crosslinkable double bonds with an alcohol compound having a crosslinkable double bond, or with a carboxylic acid compound having a crosslinkable double as bond as instantly claimed. However, Kokubo recognizes that photo radical polymerization resin comprise spirocyclic compounds bearing a spiroacetal and an acrylic/methacrylic group. Namely, a reactive material having an acetal structure and a cross-linkable double bond within a molecule is disclosed, Its use as a photo radical polymer resin three-dimensional photo styling is also disclose. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art , given that the structure of the target compound ( containing an acetal structure and a crosslinking double bond) is known, in order to prepare this compound, there is motivation to find a suitable preparation route from synthetic methods well known in the art of organic chemistry. Whereas Arishima et al. disclose an active-energy ray curable composition ( see [0017-0026]) having the reactive hemiacetal ester (A) is a compound obtained from the reaction of a (meth) acrylic compound (C) having a carboxyl group and a vinyl ether compound (D) having two or more vinyl ether groups. The (meth)acrylic compound (C) having a carboxyl group is a compound having a carboxyl group and a (meth) acryloyl group, examples of phthalic acid-(meth)acryloxyethyl ester monoester, isophthalic acid-(meth)acryloxyethyl ester monoester, terephthalic acid-(meth) acryloxyethyl ester monoester, succinic acid-(meth)acryloxyethyl ester, acrylic acid, methacrylic acid and the like can be given. That is, Arishima et al. uses the technical implication that a compound having two or more vinyl ether group ( that is, two or more cross-linkable double bonds) reacts with a carboxylic acid compound having a crosslinkable double bond to obtain a reactive material having an acetal structure and a cross-linkable double bond within a molecule. In the technical implication of Arishima et al. in order to obtain a reactive material having an acetal structure and a crosslinkable double bond in a molecule, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to easily envision preparation by using a rection product of a compound having two or more crosslinkable double bonds with an alcohol compound having a crosslinkable double bond or a carboxylic acid compound having a crosslinkable double bond. At the of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Arishima et al. with conventional techniques in the art on the basis of Kokubo in view of routine experimentation.
Further regards to claim 3, Kokubo does not explicitly recite “ wherein the reactive material has a thermal decomposition temperature of 80°C to 200°C as measured by thermogravimetry-differential thermal analysis” as instantly claimed. However, Kokubo recognizes the use of spiroacetal and acrylic/methacrylic groups as photo radical polymerization resins ( see Id.). At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, obtaining a specific thermal decomposition temperature range by adjusting the molecular structure of the reactive material, such as thermal stability of the acetal structure, is able to be adjusted and determined by a person skilled in the art by routine experimentation, the technical effect of which can be expected. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235; 220 F2d 454 (CCPA 1955).
Further regards to claim 7, Kokubo et al. do not explicitly disclose “wherein a cured product of the resin composition has a main tanϐ peak temperature of 40°C or higher” as instantly claimed. It is well known in the art that the main tanϐ peak temperature is optimizable. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215. Furthermore, the main peak temperature of tan is a dynamic mechanical property parameter of the resin curative that is closely related to the crosslink density and molecular structure of the resin composition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention, after having determine the structure and the amount of reactive material, can obtain the tan main peak temperature of the corresponding cured product by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235; 220 F2d 454 (CCPA 1955).
Further regards to claim 8, Kokubo et al. do not explicitly disclose “wherein the reactive monomer is a reactive monomer whose homopolymer has a glass transition temperature of temperature of 40°C or higher” as instantly claimed. It is well known in the art that glass transition temperature is optimizable. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215. In order to obtain a cured product with higher heat resistance or higher glass transition temperature, it would have been obvious to one of the person of ordinary skilled in the art is motivated to select a reactive monomer with higher Tg when made into a homopolymer, such selection being within the ordinary skill in the art, whose technical effect can be expected.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Yamamura et al. (US 2004/0106692 A1; see abstract, claims and figures) teach a photocurable resin composition suitable for use in three-dimensional photofabrication as instantly claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANCEITY N ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:00 am-6:00 pm; IFP; PHP).
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/CHANCEITY N ROBINSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights