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 .
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format of 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 250 words.
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.
Claim(s) 1,9,10,11,12,13,15,27,28,29,30,31,33,35,38,39,40,42, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPub 20200048414 abstract, paragraphs [0002], [0004], [0029]-[0031], [0063]-[0067], [0068], [0070],0074 .in view of USP10633490 See col.1 line 21 and col. 2 lines 29-31 and col. 21 line 53.
Claim 1 is directed to an additive manufacturing filament comprising a polymer composition (PC) which comprises at least 50.0 wt.% of at least one polyamide (PA) formed from polycondensation of a diamine component (A) and a diacid component (B), wherein: the diamine component (A) consists essentially of: a) between 40.0 and 80.0 mol% of at least one bis(aminoalkyl) cyclohexane represented by formula (I):H>H2 (I)where the42N-R3-NH2 (II) where R3 is a C7-C16 aliphatic alkylene group; wherein proportions in mol% are based on a total amount of diamines in the diamine component (A); - the diacid component (B) consists essentially of:
c) between 70.0 and 100.0 mol.% of terephthalic acid;
d) between 0 and 30.0 mol.% of at least one dicarboxylic acid other than terephthalic acid of formula (III):HOOC-R4-COOH (III) where R4 is a C4-C20 alkylene group or a C7-C20 arylene group; wherein proportions in mol% are based on a total amount of diacids in the diacid component (B).
USPub20200048414 discloses a 3 D printing filament made from semi aromatic polyamides. See abstract, paragraphs [0029]-[0031]. The reference discloses that these materials can be melt extruded into filament and used in fused filament fabrication. It teaches that the polyamides improve printability, reduce warping and good mechanical strength. See paragraphs [0002], [0004].
USPub20200048414 does not disclose the specific polyamide composition of claim 1.
USP10633490 discloses semi aromatic polyamides made from 1,3,bis aminomethyl cyclohexane, terephthalic acid and linear diamines. It also teaches that these polymers have a high glass transition temperature, good mechanical strength and can be processed by extrusion. See col.1 line 21 and col. 2 lines 29-31 and col. 21 line 53.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polymer USP10633490 teaches the filament taught by USPub20200048414 since both references describe high performance polyamides that can be processed by melt extrusion. A person skilled in the art would have recognized that polymer disclosed in USP10633490 could be used to make the filament described in USPub20200048414.
Claim 9 discloses the filament of claim 1, wherein the bis(aminoalkyl)cyclohexane is 1,3-bis(aminomethyl)cyclohexane.
USP10633490 discloses the use of 1,3-bis(aminomethyl)cyclohexane.
Claim 10 discloses the filament of claim 1 wherein the diamine of formula (II) is selected from the group consisting of 1,9-diaminononane, 1,10-diaminodecane and a combination of said two amines.
USP10633490 discloses using linear aliphatic diamines, including diamines having approximately 9 to12 carbon atoms with the 1,3-bis(aminomethyl)cyclohexane and terephthalic acid components.
Claim 11 discloses the filament of claim 1 wherein the proportion of terephthalic acid in the diacid component (B) is 100.0 mol%.
USP10633490 discloses terephthalic acid as the diacid used to form the 1,3-bis(aminomethyl)cyclohexane containing and linear diamine units. See col. 4 lines 5-16. Thus, the use of 100 mol% terephthalic acid would have been an obvious selection to the skilled artisan.
Claim 12 discloses the filament of claim 1 wherein the proportion of terephthalic acid in the diacid component (B) is between 80.0 and 95.0 mol%.
USP10633490 discloses that a limited portion of the terephthalic acid may be replaced with another dicarboxylic acid. See col. 4 lines 14-16.
Claim 13 discloses the filament of claim 1, wherein the proportion of the dicarboxylic acid(s) other than terephthalic acid in the diacid component (B) is between 5.0 and 20.0 mol%.
The use of 100 mol% terephthalic acid would have been an obvious selection to the skilled artisan.
See col. 4 lines 5-16.
Claim 15 discloses the filament of claim 1 wherein the dicarboxylic acid of formula (III) is selected from i- the group consisting of adipic acid, isophthalic acid and a combination of two or more of said diacids. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the reference teaches that additional dicarboxylic acids may be used with terephthalic acid, including aliphatic and aromatic dicarboxylic acids. Adipic acid and isophthalic acid are well known selections for adjusting the properties of a polyamide.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the references teach that additional dicarboxylic acids may be used with terephthalic acid including those claimed. See USP10633490 col. 10 line 56-57 and col. 21 lines 7-17.
Claim 27 discloses the filament of claim 1, wherein the polyamide (PA) exhibits a glass transition temperature (Tg) of at least 120°C.
USP10633490 discloses specifically discloses BAC containing polyamides having a high glass transition temperature including those above 120C.
Claim 28 discloses the filament of claim 1, wherein the polyamide (PA) exhibits a melting temperature (Tm) of at most 290°C.
USP10633490 discloses specifically discloses BAC containing polyamides having a melting transition temperature including those below 290C. See col. 3 line 26-27, col. 6 lines 52-62 and col. 12.
Claim 29 discloses the filament of claim 1, wherein the polyamide (PA) exhibits a melting temperature (Tm) of at least 240°C.
USP10633490 discloses specifically discloses BAC containing polyamides having a melting transition temperature including or overlapping those claimed. See col. 3 line 26-27, col. 6 lines 52-62 and col. 12.
Claim 30 discloses the filament of claim 1, wherein the polyamide (PA) exhibits a heat of fusion ("Hm") of at least 20.0 J/g.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since a semi-crystalline polyamide has an inherent heat of fusion that can be measured and selecting the claimed range would have been routine optimization.
Claim 31 discloses the filament of claim 1 claim[[s]] wherein the polymer composition (PC) comprises at least one reinforcing agent, selected from the group consisting of mineral fillers, glass fibers, carbon fibers, synthetic polymeric fibers, aramid fibers, aluminum fibers, titanium fibers, magnesium fibers, boron carbide fibers, rock wool fibers, steel fibers, wollastonite and any combination of two or more thereof.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since both references discloses that resin forming materials may be added to polyamide compositions including glass fibers, carbon fibers, mineral fillers and other reinforcing agents. See col. 11 lines 25-26, 52-58 of USP10633490.
Claim 33 discloses the filament of claim 1 wherein the polymer composition (PC) comprises one or more additives selected from the group consisting of tougheners, plasticizers, colorants, pigments, antistatic agents, dyes, lubricants, thermal stabilizers, light stabilizers, flame retardants, nucleating agents, antioxidants and any combination thereof. See USP10633490 claim 11.
Claim 35 discloses the filament of claim 1,having a diameter d between 0.5 mm and 5.0 mm.
See USPub 20200048414 paragraphs [0065]-[0067].
Claim 38 discloses the filament of claim 1, having a substantially circular cross-section or a circular cross-section.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since common fused filament are normally extruded though a round die and have circular cross section.
Claim 39 discloses the filament of claim 1, having a length L of at least 200 mm.
USPub 20200048414 discloses producing continuous filament and winding it onto a spool which would have a length greater than 200mm.
See paragraphs [0063]-[0067].
Claim 40 discloses a spool comprising the filament according to claim 39.
See USPub 20200048414 paragraphs [0063]-[0067].
Claim 42 discloses a method of making a three-dimensional (3D) object comprising the step of printing layers of the three-dimensional object with the polymer composition (PC) of the filament according to claim 39.
See USPub 20200048414 paragraphs [0068], [0070],0074].
In conclusion, in view of the above, there appears to be no significant difference between the reference(s) and that which is claimed by applicant(s). Any differences not specifically mentioned appear to be conventional. Consequently, the claimed invention cannot be deemed as unobvious and accordingly is unpatentable.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 38 which recites the term "substantially" is unclear. The term "substantially" is often used in conjunction with another term to describe a particular characteristic of the claimed invention. It is a broad term. In re Nehrenberg, 280 F.2d 161, 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). The court held that the limitation "to substantially increase the efficiency of the compound as a copper extractant" was definite in view of the general guidelines contained in the specification. In re Mattison, 509 F.2d 563, 184 USPQ 484 (CCPA 1975). The court held that the limitation "which produces substantially equal E and H plane illumination patterns" was definite because one of ordinary skill in the art would know what was meant by "substantially equal." Andrew Corp. v. Gabriel Electronics, 847 F.2d 819, 6 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Information Disclosure Statement
Note that any future and/or present information disclosure statements must comply with 37 CFR § 1.98(b), which requires a list of the publications to include: the author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date and place of publication to be submitted for consideration by the Office.
Improper Claim Dependency
Prior to allowance, any dependent claims should be rechecked for proper dependency if independent claims are cancelled.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRESSA M BOYKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-5:30.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571 270-1831. 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.
/Terressa Boykin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights