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 .
The amendment filed February 24, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dallner (US 2012/0208011).
Claim 1: Dallner discloses a powdery material for a 3D printer (abstract). The material consists of a polyacetal copolymer resin powder (¶ 23), wherein the polyacetal copolymer resin powder consists of a main monomer and a comonomer (¶ 23): a percentage occupied by comonomer units among all constituent units in the polyacetal copolymer resin is approximately 0.5 – 11 mass % (¶ 23; 0.2-5 mol% of a trioxane/1,3-dioxolane system), which encompasses the claimed range, an average particle diameter of the powder is 60 microns (¶ 53), and a melt flow rate of the powder measured at a temperature of 190C and with a load of 2.16 kg is between about 12.75 – 59.5 g/10 min (density “about 850 g/l” (¶ 58; 0.85 g/cm3) multiplied by the disclosed melt volume rate from 15 to 70 cm3/ 10min (abstract)), which overlaps the claimed range (see Ortho-McNeil Pharm, Inc. v. Caraco Pharm Labs, Ltd., 476 F.3d 1321, 1326, 81 USPQ2d 1427, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (construing “about 1:5” to encompass a range of ratios of at least 1:3.6 to 1:7.1)).
With regard to the overlapping and encompassed ranges, a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the ranges of a claimed element overlap or are encompassed by the ranges disclosed in the prior art. E.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). It has also been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed range and the prior art range do not overlap but are close enough such that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (concluding that a claim directed to an alloy containing “0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% maximum iron, balance titanium” would have been prima facie obvious in view of a reference disclosing alloys containing 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium).
Furthermore, with regard to the melt flow rate, Dallner discloses that the POM powder for SLS includes a range of molecular weights from 60,000 to 140,000 g/mol (abstract). The upper end of this range approaches the Mw where MFR values would be expected to decrease into the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application would have been motivated to utilize POM in the upper portion of the disclosed range to improve sintered part properties, arriving at MFR values well within the claimed range.
Claims 2-4 and 9-10: With respect to the melting and crystallization temperature difference, crystal melting enthalpy and volume-based cumulative frequency required by the claims, it is the position of the examiner that because the reference teaches the use of the same materials for the same purpose as required by the instant claims, the melting and crystallization temperature difference, crystal melting enthalpy and volume-based cumulative frequency would be expected to be the same. "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on 'inherency' under 35 U.S.C. 102, on 'prima facie obviousness' under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same...[footnote omitted]." The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (quoting In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)).
Claims 5 and 11: Dallner discloses the comonomer including recurring oxyalkylene units introduced by ring-opening of cyclic ethers (¶ 23).
Claims 6 and 12: Dallner discloses ethylene oxide and propylene 1,2-oxide as comonomers for the POM copolymer (¶ 23).
Claim 15: Dallner discloses the percentage of the powder in the material is 100% (¶ 23).
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 LARRY THROWER whose telephone number is (571)270-5517. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm MT M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1487. 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.
/LARRY W THROWER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754