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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fasching (US20050208271A1).
In reference to claim 1:
Fasching discloses a method (title, abstract, para 0008), comprising:
applying benzyl alcohol, to a surface of a first polyamide-based 3D object, a surface of a second polyamide-based 3D object, or both the surface of the first polyamide-based 3D object and the surface of the second polyamide-based 3D object (paras 0013-0014, 0017, 0018; Fig. 1; “nylons” of Fasching are another term for polyamides and thus meet the claimed “polyamide-based”), wherein each of the first polyamide-based 3D object and the second polyamide-based 3D object are a polyamide 3D object (para 0017), and wherein the first polyamide-based 3D object has a different chemical composition than the second polyamide-based 3D object (para 0017);
after the benzyl alcohol is applied, directly contacting the surface of the first polyamide-based 3D object with the surface of the second polyamide-based 3D object (para 0013, Fig. 1); and
while the surfaces are in contact, exposing the first polyamide-based 3D object and the second polyamide-based 3D object to a predetermined temperature for a predetermined time, thereby welding the surfaces together (paras 0014-0016, 0023).
In reference to claim 4:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Fasching further discloses wherein the predetermined temperature is below a melting temperature of each of the first polyamide-based 3D object and the second polyamide-based 3D object (paras 0014-0016, 0026).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fasching as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Sturm (US20220339864 – previously of record) and Fleischmann (WO2019245516A1 – previously of record) Sturm (US20220339864 – previously of record).
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Fasching further discloses wherein:
the first polyamide-based 3D object is the polyamide 3D object (para 0017).
Fasching discloses wherein suitable polymers for the first polyamide-based 3D object are “nylons” (para 0017) but does not disclose the polyamide 3D object includes a coalesced polyamide material of polyamide 12. However, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). As applied to the instant application, Sturm teaches a method for bonding polyamide-based objects (para 0025) using a benzyl alcohol atmosphere (para 0027). Sturm further teaches using coalesced polyamide 12 to produce a polyamide-based object for joining (paras 0015-0017, 0025).
Modified Fasching does not disclose the second polyamide-based 3D object is the polyamide elastomer 3D object; and the polyamide elastomer 3D object includes a coalesced polyamide elastomer material is a poly(ether amide) block copolymer. However, this would have been obvious in view of Fleischmann. Fleischmann teaches a method of producing a polyamide based 3D object (paras 0021-0022, 0039). Fleischmann further teaches utilizing a poly(ether amide) block copolymer (“polyether block amide elastomer” para 0021) or a TPU (“thermoplastic polyurethane” para 0021). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the polyamide elastomer of Fleischmann as the elastomer of Sturm based on its art recognized suitability for the intended use. See MPEP 2144.07 and 2143.B.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fasching as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Wright (US20170282456 – previously of record).
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Fasching further discloses wherein:
the first polyamide-based 3D object is the polyamide 3D object (para 0017);
the second polyamide-based 3D object is a second polyamide 3D object (para 0017); and
Fasching further discloses the polymer bodies may be “nylons” and have different compositions (para 0017) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the second polyamide 3D object includes a coalesced polyamide material selected from the group consisting of polyamide 11, polyamide 6, polyamide 8, polyamide 9, polyamide 66, polyamide 612, polyamide 812, and polyamide 912. However, this would have been obvious in view of Wright. Wright teaches a method for generating a three-dimensional object by coalescing polyamide materials (paras 0018, 0024, 0034). Wright further teaches using polyamide 11, nylon 12, polyamide 6, polyamide 8, polyamide 9, polyamide 66, polyamide 612, polyamide 812, and polyamide 912 (para 0019, the use of “nylon” in Wright is the same as the “polyamide-based” of the claim). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the polyamide of Wright as the second object of Sturm based on its art recognized suitability for the intended use. See MPEP 2144.07 and 2143.B.
Claim(s) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fasching as applied to claims 4 and 1, above, and further in view of Sturm.
In reference to claim 5:
In addition to the discussion of claim 4, above, Fasching further discloses that the temperature is a relevant process parameter (para 0023) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined temperature ranges from about 50° C. to about 150° C. However, this would have been obvious in view of Sturm. Sturm teaches a method for bonding polyamide-based objects (para 0025) using a benzyl alcohol atmosphere (para 0027). Sturm further teaches using heating the chamber to a temperature of 25-100oC in order to accelerate the reaction (para 0011, 25-100oC overlaps the claimed 50-150oC). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the temperature range of Sturm in the method of Fasching in order to accelerate the reaction.
In reference to claim 8:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Fasching discloses exposing the polyamide-based 3D objects to a solvent vapor but does not explicitly disclose how the solvent vapor is produced and, therefore, does not disclose wherein the benzyl alcohol is applied by brushing, dripping, or spraying. However, the selection of a known mechanism, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). As applied to the instant application, Sturm teaches a method for bonding polyamide-based objects (para 0025) using a benzyl alcohol atmosphere (para 0027). Sturm further teaches producing the solvent atmosphere by spraying a solvent (para 0011). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select spraying, as taught by Sturm, to product the solvent vapor of Fasching because spraying is known in the art as suitable for the intended purpose.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fasching as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Hinge (US20150316061 – previously of record).
In reference to claim 6:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Fasching does not disclose determining the predetermined time based on a geometry of each of the first polyamide-based 3D object and the second polyamide-based 3D object. However, this would have been obvious in view of Hinge. Hinge teaches a method of solvent welding (para 0106). Hinge further teaches wherein the predetermined time is based on a geometry of each of the objects being joined (para 0041). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to base the predetermined time of Sturm on the geometry of each object being joined because it is known in the art the geometry of the parts is closely related to the predetermined time required, as taught by Hinge.
In reference to claim 7:
In addition to the discussion of claim 6, above, modified Fasching does not explicitly teach wherein the predetermined time ranges from about 1 minute to about 24 hours. However, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). As applied to the instant application, Hinge teaches wherein the predetermined time is based on a geometry of each of the objects being joined (para 0041, as discussed in reference to claim 6) and that the holding time can be optimized to provide the highest ultimate strength (para 0110). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the bonding time in order to provide an acceptable strength in the least amount of time or the maximum strength.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fasching as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Fleischmann.
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Fasching does not disclose wherein
the first polyamide-based 3D object is the polyamide elastomer 3D object;
the polyamide elastomer 3D object includes a coalesced polyamide elastomer material selected from the group consisting of a poly(ester amide) block copolymer, a poly(ether ester amide) block copolymer, and a poly(ether amide) block copolymer;
the second polyamide-based 3D object is a second polyamide elastomer 3D object; and
the second polyamide elastomer 3D object includes a coalesced polyamide elastomer material that is different from the coalesced polyamide elastomer material polyamide elastomer 3D object.
However, this would have been obvious in view of Fleischmann. Fleischmann teaches a method of producing a polyamide based 3D object (paras 0021-0022, 0039). Fleischmann further teaches utilizing a poly(ether amide) block copolymer (“polyether block amide elastomer” para 0021) or a TPU (“thermoplastic polyurethane” para 0021). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the polyamide elastomer of Fleischmann as the elastomer of Sturm based on its art recognized suitability for the intended use of producing polyamide-based object. See MPEP 2144.07 and 2143.B.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see 11 paragraph 1, filed 03/02/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3, 4, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. §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 Fasching (US20050208271A1).
Applicant’s arguments, see page 13 paragraph 4, filed 03/02/2026, with respect to claims 2, 5-7, and 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 of 11/28/2025 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Fasching (US20050208271A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW L SWANSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1724. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 0800-1900 and every other Friday 0800-1600.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/ANDREW L SWANSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights