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
This Office action is in response to the communication filed on 01/05/2026. Currently claims 21-40 are pending in the application, with claims 34-40 withdrawn from consideration.
ELECTION / RESTRICTION
Applicant's election of Group II, with traverse, drawn to a composition in the reply filed on 01/05/2026 is acknowledged. Since the Applicant submitted a new set of claims on 01/05/2026, the examiner interpreted (and also confirmed by the Attorney in an interview), that the election has been made to claims 21-33, and claims 34-40 has been withdrawn from consideration. The traversal is on the ground that the examiner’s assertion that the special technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make contribution over the prior art, as the applicant amended the claims to include further limitation. However, the examiner takes the position that the restriction requirement is still valid, as will be demonstrated in detail from the rejection section of this Office action, where it will be shown that the special technical features of the different group of claims is taught by the prior arts. Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is made FINAL.
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 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. 103 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made 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 non-obviousness.
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 21-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Cross et al. (WO 2019/160632 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Cross”, in view of Van Benthem et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0048244 A1, that claims foreign priority date of October 26, 2018), hereafter, referred to as “Van Benthem”.
Regarding claims 21-22, Cross teaches a powder composition comprising a thermoplastic elastomer suitable for additive manufacturing sintering processes, by teaching an additive manufacturing process for producing a printed article by using an additive manufacturing powder composition comprising a thermoplastic elastomer (claims; pages 35, 36; example). Cross teaches that the differential scanning calorimetry plots in Figs. 3 and 4 show that the difference between the melting peak temperature Tm, peak and the melting onset temperature Tm, onset in the region of the primary melting temperature of the annealed material is less than 30 °C. It is also noted from table 8 in the instant application it can be derived that thermoplastic elastomer powders generally appear to have a rebound resilience of 50 % or more, in particular when the powders have been subjected to an annealing process. The feature is therefore considered as an inherent feature of the annealed powder disclosed by Cross.
But Cross fails to explicitly teach that the that the difference between the melting peak temperature Tm, onset and the crystallization onset temperature Tc, onset is 5 °C or greater, and 10 °C or greater. However, Van Benthem teaches the use of elastomeric sintering powders for use in 3D printing application process. Van Benthem teaches commonly-described characteristics of polymer powders are crystallization temperature (Tc) and melting point temperature (Tm) and how they relate to sinterability. Van Benthem teaches that a powder's melting point onset temperature (Tm, onset) and crystallization onset temperature (Tc, onset) are more critical determinants for assessing its potential suitability for use in additive manufacturing processes. This is because the difference between these values, expressed mathematically as ΔT= (T m, onset – T c, onset), represents the temperature region within which the powder will be suitable for use in additive manufacturing processes. Van Benthem teaches that a powder's ΔT, referred synonymously as its "sinterability region", must be maximized in order to ensure the powder will behave in a consistent fashion despite the natural temperature variabilities in the additive manufacturing process in which it is used (para. [0022]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Van Benthem and optimize the ingredients of the elastomeric powders of Cross, so that the powders of the exhibit larger windows of sinterability. Additionally, the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Therefore, maintaining the difference between the melting peak temperature Tm, onset and the crystallization onset temperature Tc, onset is 5 °C or greater (as claimed in claim 1), and 10 °C or greater (as claimed in claim 2), by optimizing the ingredient composition, would be a matter of optimization that would be performed under routine experimentation. Please see In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 23, Cross teaches a powder composition wherein the thermoplastic elastomer is a block copolymer comprising one or more hard blocks and one or more soft blocks; by teaching that polymer segments are commonly described as being relatively harder or softer based on their chemical structures, and it is common for polymers to include relatively harder segments and relatively softer segments bonded to each other in a single monomeric unit or in different monomeric units (page 9, lines 4-7).
Regarding claim 24, Cross teaches a powder composition, wherein the one or more hard blocks comprise polyester and/or wherein the one or more soft blocks comprise polyether; by teaching to use polyester and polyether (page 8, lines 11-24).
Regarding claim 25, Cross teaches a powder composition, wherein the one or more hard blocks comprise polybutylene terephthalate, polybutylene isophthalate, and/or copolymers thereof; by teaching to use polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) (page 27, lines 33-37).
Regarding claim 26, Cross teaches a powder composition wherein the thermoplastic elastomer is a block copolymer comprising one or more hard blocks and one or more soft blocks; by teaching that polymer segments are commonly described as being relatively harder or softer based on their chemical structures, and it is common for polymers to include relatively harder segments and relatively softer segments bonded to each other in a single monomeric unit or in different monomeric units (page 9, lines 4-7). But Cross fails to explicitly teach that the thermoplastic elastomer comprises 10-80 wt.% of the one or more soft blocks, relative to the weight of the thermoplastic elastomer. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, that the property of the final article will depend on compositional range of the ingredients of the powder, therefore the compositional range of the ingredients of the powders would be considered a result effective variable. Additionally, the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Therefore, maintaining that the thermoplastic elastomer comprises 10-80 wt.% of the one or more soft blocks, relative to the weight of the thermoplastic elastomer would be a matter of optimization that would be performed under routine experimentation. Please see In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claims 27-30, Cross teaches in Figs. 3-4, a powder composition, wherein the thermoplastic elastomer has a melting peak temperature in the range of 145-150 °C.
Regarding claims 31-33, Cross teaches a powder composition comprising a thermoplastic elastomer suitable for additive manufacturing sintering processes, by teaching an additive manufacturing process for producing a printed article by using an additive manufacturing powder composition comprising a thermoplastic elastomer (claims; pages 35, 36; example). But Cross fails to explicitly teach that the powder composition comprises 90% or more, and 95% or more, and 99% or more by total wight of the composition of thermoplastic elastomer. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, that the property of the final article will depend on compositional range of the ingredients of the powder, therefore the compositional range of the ingredients of the powders would be considered a result effective variable. Additionally, the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Therefore, maintaining that that the powder composition comprises 90% or more (as claimed in claim 31), and 95% or more (as claimed in claim 32), and 99% or more (as claimed in claim 33), by total wight of the composition of thermoplastic elastomer, would be a matter of optimization that would be performed under routine experimentation. Please see In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M AMEEN whose telephone number is (469) 295 9214. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9.00 am to 6.00 pm (Central Time).
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD M AMEEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742