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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claims 2-20, in order to ensure proper antecedent basis, Applicant is advised to change, “A” to “The” before support in line 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In claims 2-5 which recites, “wherein the particulate is at least 5, 10, 15, 20% by weight of the support composition” fails to further limit from the claim 1 which it depends on, where “at least 5, 10, 15 or 20% by weight” can include any number greater than 35 wt% which is upper limit of the particulate in claim 1. Claims 2-5 depends on claim 1 which recites, “the particulate is at 5% by weight to 25% by weight of the support composition”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
In claims 6-11 which recites, “wherein the particulate is less than 35, 30, 25, 20, 15, 10% by weight of the support composition” fails to further limit from the claim 1 which it depends on, where “less than 35, 30, 25, 20, 15, 10% by weight” can include any number less than 5 wt% which is lower limit of the particulate in claim 1. Claims 6-11 depends on claim 1 which recites, “the particulate is at 5% by weight to 25% by weight of the support composition”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cernohous et al. (WO 2021/216877).
Regarding claims 1-11, Cernohous discloses water soluble polymer blend composition includes at least one water soluble polymer (support polymer of present invention) and at least one immiscible polymer (abstract). Cernohous discloses a filler (finely divided particulate of the present invention) is added to a water-soluble polymer blend composition. Fillers are useful in that they allow one skilled in the art to adjust mechanical properties of the end-use article made using a polymeric material (para 0067). The amount of filler in a water-soluble polymer blend composition after melt processing is typically between 1 to 60 wt%. In a preferred embodiment, the filler loading level is between 1 to 30 wt% (para 0067). Cernohous discloses water soluble polymer blend composition can be used in additive manufacturing as a build material, or as a support material to create a water-soluble support. A water-soluble polymer blend composition can also be converted into an article using conventional melt processing techniques, such as compounding, extrusion, molding, and casting, or additive manufacturing processes (para 0076). Cernohous discloses water soluble polymer blend composition can be used in additive manufacturing as a build material, or as a support material to create a water-soluble support (para 0076).
With respect to the limitation of 5-25 wt% of particulate, Cernohous discloses 1-30 wt% of filler which overlaps the claimed range, In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner et al. (US 2018/0340089).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 6-11 Brunner discloses water soluble polymer composition includes a water-soluble polymer (soluble support polymer of the present invention) and a sugar and may be used as a support in additive manufacturing processes (abstract). Brunner discloses additive manufacturing processes, a variety of additive manufacturing devices can employ water soluble polymer compositions, as, for example, a support or build material (para 0064). The term “soluble support” or “soluble support material” refers to a material that is printed in three dimensions using an additive manufacturing process (para 0040). Brunner discloses a water-soluble polymer composition can also employ a variety of additives, which may also be miscible or non-miscible with the water-soluble polymer composition. Non-limiting examples of suitable additives include antioxidants, light stabilizers, fibers, blowing agents, foaming additives, antiblocking agents, heat reflective materials, heat stabilizers, impact modifiers, biocides, antimicrobial additives. Typical additive loading levels may be, for example, approximately 0.01 to 5 wt % of the composition formulation (para 0053), where the additives corresponds to the particulate of the present claim.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demuth et al. (US 2018/0111337).
Regarding claim 1, Demuth discloses water soluble polymeric composition for use as a consumable material in a 3D printer, the composition comprising: a water soluble polymer (support polymer of the present invention) comprising at least about 50 percent of a total weight of the composition; a rheologic modifier comprising at least about 1 weight percent of the total weight of the polymeric composition; and a filler (particulate of the present invention) comprising at least about 10 weight percent of the total weight of the polymeric composition (abstract). Demuth discloses additive manufacturing systems for printing three-dimensional (3D) parts and support structures. In particular, the present disclosure relates to a water-soluble material for use in 3D printers, and methods of printing 3D parts (para 0001).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cernohous et al. (WO 2021/216877) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Hu et al. (US 2021/0071020).
Regarding claims 12-20, Cernohous fails to disclose that filler is at or below 2 microns weight average particle size.
Whereas, Hu discloses Additive manufacturing processes, such as powder bed fusion of thermoplastic particulates, may be employed to form printed objects in a range of shapes. Hu discloses printing compositions may comprise a plurality of thermoplastic particulates comprising a thermoplastic polymer, a metal precursor admixed with the thermoplastic polymer, and optionally a plurality of nanoparticles disposed upon an outer surface of each of the thermoplastic particulates (abstract). When present, the plurality of nanoparticles may comprise a plurality of oxide nanoparticles. Oxide nanoparticles suitable for use in the present disclosure may include, for example, silica nanoparticles, titania nanoparticles, zirconia nanoparticles, alumina nanoparticles, iron oxide nanoparticles (para 0033). The particle size of the nanoparticles may range from about 1 nm to about 100 nm, although particles sizes up to about 500 nm may also be acceptable (para 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to form filler of Cernohous having an average particle size of 1-500 nm as taught by Hu motivated by the desire to have improved mechanical properties and durability.
Claim(s) 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner et al. (US 2018/0340089) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Hu et al. (US 2021/0071020).
Regarding claims 12-20, Brunner fails to disclose that additives is at or below 2 microns weight average particle size.
Whereas, Hu discloses Additive manufacturing processes, such as powder bed fusion of thermoplastic particulates, may be employed to form printed objects in a range of shapes. Hu discloses printing compositions may comprise a plurality of thermoplastic particulates comprising a thermoplastic polymer, a metal precursor admixed with the thermoplastic polymer, and optionally a plurality of nanoparticles disposed upon an outer surface of each of the thermoplastic particulates (abstract). When present, the plurality of nanoparticles may comprise a plurality of oxide nanoparticles. Oxide nanoparticles suitable for use in the present disclosure may include, for example, silica nanoparticles, titania nanoparticles, zirconia nanoparticles, alumina nanoparticles, iron oxide nanoparticles (para 0033). The particle size of the nanoparticles may range from about 1 nm to about 100 nm, although particles sizes up to about 500 nm may also be acceptable (para 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to form additives of Brunner having an average particle size of 1-500 nm as taught by Hu motivated by the desire to have improved mechanical properties and durability.
Claim(s) 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demuth et al. (US 2018/0111337) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Hu et al. (US 2021/0071020).
Regarding claims 12-20, Demuth fails to disclose that filler is at or below 2 microns weight average particle size.
Whereas, Hu discloses Additive manufacturing processes, such as powder bed fusion of thermoplastic particulates, may be employed to form printed objects in a range of shapes. Hu discloses printing compositions may comprise a plurality of thermoplastic particulates comprising a thermoplastic polymer, a metal precursor admixed with the thermoplastic polymer, and optionally a plurality of nanoparticles disposed upon an outer surface of each of the thermoplastic particulates (abstract). When present, the plurality of nanoparticles may comprise a plurality of oxide nanoparticles. Oxide nanoparticles suitable for use in the present disclosure may include, for example, silica nanoparticles, titania nanoparticles, zirconia nanoparticles, alumina nanoparticles, iron oxide nanoparticles (para 0033). The particle size of the nanoparticles may range from about 1 nm to about 100 nm, although particles sizes up to about 500 nm may also be acceptable (para 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to form filler of Demuth having an average particle size of 1-500 nm as taught by Hu motivated by the desire to have improved mechanical properties and durability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONAK C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-6:30PM (FLEX).
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, ALICIA CHEVALIER can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/RONAK C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788