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/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on January 14, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that MPEP 803 requires serious burden for a restriction. This is not found persuasive because the restriction is under Unity of Invention (see MPEP 823), and MPEP 803 does not apply.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 13-15 have been withdrawn. Claims 1 and 5 have been amended. The rejections are revised in view of the amendment.
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) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorin (US 2021/0299948) in view of Peterson (US 2021/0206051), with claim 4 as evidenced by Chang (US 2019/0017222) and claim 9 as evidenced by Wolters (US 20070213439).
Regarding claim 1, Gorin discloses a method of manufacturing a 3D article (FFF AM, abstract), comprising manufacturing the 3D article from a polymer material by an additive manufacturing process (FFF AM, abstract), the polymer material comprising: a) at least one polyethylene (HDPE and LDPE, abstract, [0011] [0033]) having a density at 23 °C determined according to EN ISO 1183-1:2019 standard of at least 0.930 kg/m3 (Table 2, [0035]) and a crystallinity determined according to EN ISO 11357-3:2018 standard of at least 50 wt.-% (crystalline, [0024], with all other limitations met, this property is considered inherent), b) at least one solid filler (silicates, [0030]), and c) optionally at least one nucleating agent ([0030]), and wherein the at least one polyethylene comprises at least 50 wt.-% of a total weight of the polymer material (1.5/1 to 20/1 HDPE to a second thermoplastic polymer (one of the options for which is LDPE, [0006]).
Gorin teaches a method substantially as claimed. Gorin does not disclose wherein the at least one solid filler is a fibrous filler having a volume-based mean aspect ratio of length/diameter of 3 – 60.
However, in the same field of endeavor of polymer compositions for FFF (abstract), Peterson teaches wherein the at least one solid filler is a fibrous filler having a volume-based mean aspect ratio of length/diameter of 3 – 60 (glass fibers, 4-40, [0085-86] [0125]).
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 method of Gorin such that the filler of Gorin has a volume-based mean aspect ratio within the recited range because Gorin is silent as to this attribute of the filler and [0085-86] of Peterson teaches aspect ratios within the recited range for fillers in the same technical context of fused filament fabrication.
Regarding claim 2, Gorin as modified teaches wherein the additive manufacturing process is a fused filament fabrication process (abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Gorin as modified teaches wherein the at least one polyethylene has a melt flow index (190 °C/2.16 kg) determined according to ISO 1133-1:2011 standard of at least 1 g/10 min (overlapping range, Gorin [0024]; true for all listed embodiments in [0033] of Gorin).
Regarding claim 4, Gorin as modified teaches wherein the at least one polyethylene has a flexural modulus at 23 °C determined according to ISO 178:2019 standard of at least 450 MPa (DMDA 8940 has a Flexural Modulus of 148000psi (1020MPa), Gorin [0024]; as evidenced by [0050], Table 3 of Chang).
Regarding claim 5, Gorin as modified teaches wherein the at least one polyethylene comprises at least 75 wt.-% of the total weight of the polymer material (20/1 ratio of HDPE/STP [0030]).
Regarding claim 6, Gorin in view of Peterson teaches wherein the at least one solid filler has a volume-based mean particle diameter D50 of not more than 50μm (as modified, overlapping range, Peterson [0086], see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 7, Gorin in view of Peterson teaches wherein the at least one solid filler is glass fibers (as modified, Peterson [0086]).
Regarding claim 8, Gorin in view of Peterson teaches wherein the at least one solid filler comprises 5 - 35 wt.-% of the total weight of the polymer material (overlapping range, majority of the blend is HDPE, Gorin [0030]).
Regarding claim 9, Gorin as modified teaches wherein the at least one nucleating agent is selected from the group consisting of nanoscale calcium carbonate, titanium dioxide, barium sulfate, silicon dioxide, expanded graphite, montmorillonite clay, talc, multiwall carbon nanotubes, vermiculite nanocomposite minerals, 1,2-cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid, calcium salts, anthracene, potassium hydrogen phthalate, benzoic acid and derivatives thereof, and sodium benzoate and derivatives thereof (HPN-20E from Milliken is a calcium salt, Gorin [0030]; see [0007] of Wolters).
Regarding claim 10, Gorin as modified teaches wherein the at least one nucleating agent comprises 0.1 - 10 wt.-% of the total weight of the polymer material (overlapping range, majority of the blend is HDPE, Gorin [0030]).
Regarding claim 11, Gorin as modified teaches wherein the additive manufacturing process includes: i) providing a digital model of the 3D article (CAD or other methodology with predetermined planning for production, [0019]), ii) based on the digital model, printing the polymer material using a 3D printer to form the 3D article ([0019]).
Regarding claim 12, Gorin as modified teaches wherein the 3D printer is a fused filament fabrication printer (abstract, [0017]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed January 14, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection over Peterson (US 2021/0206051) alone has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed January 14, 2026 with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, based on [0003] and [0012], that Gorin teaches away from solid fillers. This argument is not persuasive because [0030] of Gorin teaches including filler, so long as the majority of the blend is HDPE. None of the claims require a level of polyethylene below a majority of the blend.
Conclusion
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
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights