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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claims 1-7 and 16 in the reply filed on 7/15/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the combination of Kabalnov and Chen, the references used in the restriction, does not arrive at Applicant's claims with any reasonable expectation of success. This is not found persuasive because the prior art is presumed to be enabling and applicant has not shown how the skilled person would not arrive at the special technical feature that links the claims using Kabalnov and Chen. As stated in the restriction requirement, Kabalnov teaches the components of the 3D printing kit, and teaches that the fusing agents include co-solvents, but does not list the specific benzyl alcohol or the diethylene glycol butyl ether. Chen discloses these solvents (non-reactive diluents) are used in 3D printing compositions and are functionally equivalent to the co-solvents listed in Kabalnov. Additionally, the reference WO2019099031 to Fleischmann et al also lists diethylene glycol monobutyl ether as a co-solvent for fusing agents used in 3D printing ¶[0079], and it is listed among the same solvents used by Kabalnov. Fleischmann therefore teaches that DEGBE is functionally equivalent to the solvents disclosed by Kabalnov.
It is prima facie obvious to substitute one material for another to obtain predictable results when the materials are recognized as functional equivalents in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the invention of Kabalnov but substitute the co-solvent with benzyl alcohol or DEGBE because it is the simple substitution of co-solvents that are recognized as functional equivalents with the motivation of producing the predictable result of another permutation of a 3D printing kit with fusing agents comprising solvents as disclosed by Chen and Fleischmann.
The combination of references establishes that the recited components of the 3D printing kit do not constitute a special technical feature making a contribution over the prior art. The printing kit common to groups I-III does not provide the requisite special technical feature linking the groups under PCT Rule 13.2 and the requirement for lack of Unity is maintained. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
The species restriction requirement is withdrawn because there are no dependent claims directed to more than one species of the build material of the invention.
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.
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 1-4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabalnov et al WO2019156656A1 in view of Fleischmann et al WO2019099031A1.
Regarding claim 1-4, Kabalnov teaches a 3D printing kit comprising a build material which may be a polymeric powder such as polyamide particles, ¶[0016, 0176], a first fusing agent, and a second fusing agent, abstract and ¶[0016].
The first fusing agent comprises at least one metal oxide nanoparticle which absorbs light from 780 nm-2300 nm, ¶[0016]. The 780 nm wavelength is included in applicant’s range of visible wavelengths for the claimed colored visible light absorber, see ¶[0029] of the instant specification. Therefore, the metal oxide absorbs a visible wavelength of light. Additionally, the metal oxide is exemplified as cesium tungsten oxide and may give the dispersion a light blue color, ¶¶[0090, 0101] which reads on the claimed first fusing agent being colored and the visible light absorber being colored. The metal oxide nanoparticles (light absorber) are contained in the first fusing agent in an amount ranging from 1%-20% based on the weight of the first fusing agent, ¶[0081], which overlaps with the claimed range of claims 1 and 4, 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).
The first fusing agent further comprises a liquid vehicle, which includes water and co-solvents, ¶¶[0079, 0094]. The examples of co-solvents include 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)-2-pyrolidinone, 2-pyrrolidinone, 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol, 1,5-pentanediol, triethylene glycol, tetraethylene glycol, 1,6-hexanediol, tripropylene glycol methyl ether, ethoxylated glycerol-1 (LEG-1 ), and combinations thereof, ¶[0096], these co-solvents read on the water soluble second solvent of claims 1 and 3.
The second fusing agent comprises a near infrared absorbing compound that includes carbon black and cyanine dyes, and the near IR compound can include a combination of more than one, ¶[0103-0104]; the carbon black reads on the colored visible light absorber of the second fusing agent and the cyanine dyes read on the colored dye of the second fusing agent. Carbon black can be present in an amount of 1-20 wt.% ¶[0108] based on the weight of the second fusing agent, which overlaps with the claimed range of claim 4. The second fusing agent further comprises at least one co-solvent and water, ¶[0106]. The co-solvents for the second fusing agent include the same as those listed for the first fusing agent, ¶[0112].
Kabalnov does not list benzyl alcohol or diethylene glycol butyl ether (DEGBE) among the co-solvents, but also does not explicitly limit the co-solvents to only those in ¶[0096], nor is there a preferred co-solvent used in the examples, where it is only described as organic solvent in the tables, ¶[0198].
Fleischmann discloses 3D printing kits comprising polyamide build materials and a fusing agent, abstract and ¶[0016]. The fusing agent comprises a near IR absorbing compound and co-solvents, ¶[0047]. Fleischmann discloses the classes of organic co-solvents that may be used in the water-based fusing agent include aromatic alcohols, ethylene glycol alkyl ethers, and lactams, ¶[0049]. The class of aromatic alcohol renders obvious benzyl alcohol. It is then further disclosed that examples of the co-solvent includes 2-pyrolidinone, 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)-2-pyrolidinone, diethylene glycol monobutyl ether (DEGBE), 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol, or tripropylene glycol methyl ether, among others, ¶[0079]. The co-solvents plasticize the polymer particles and enhance the coalescing of the polymer particles upon exposure to photonic energy to fuse the polymer build material particles together and form the 3D printed object, ¶[0078]. Fleischmann therefore teaches that DEGBE is functionally equivalent to the co-solvents disclosed by Kabalnov, in that they act as plasticizing co-solvents for water based fusing agents in 3D printing kits.
Kabalnov and Fleischmann are analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of 3D printing kits using similar build materials and fusing agents.
It is prima facie obvious to substitute one material for another to obtain predictable results when the materials are recognized as functional equivalents in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the invention of Kabalnov but substitute the co-solvent with an aromatic alcohol, such as benzyl alcohol, or DEGBE because it is the simple substitution of co-solvents that are recognized as functionally equivalent plasticizing co-solvents with the motivation of producing the predictable result of another permutation of a 3D printing kit with fusing agents comprising plasticizing solvents as disclosed by Fleischmann.
Regarding claim 6, Kabalnov teaches that the cyanine dyes are a type of near IR absorber, ¶[0028], and is present in an amount of 1-20 wt.% based on the weight of the second fusing agent, which overlaps with the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed Kabalnov because selection of the overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be prima facie obvious. 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited prior art does not teach, suggest, or disclose the subject of claims 5, 7, and 16. Kabalnov teaches the amount of light absorber in each fusing agent is 1-20 wt.% based on the weight of the fusing agent, which is higher than the range of claim 5, and does not suggest a reason to lower it below 1%. There would be no motivation to decrease it below 1% because it may not perform as intended which is to generate enough heat to fuse the build material when irradiated.
Kabalnov does not teach adding a colored dye to the first fusing agent, nor is there a suggestion to do so. A colored ink is included in the kit which is applied before the first fusing agent, and contains pigments and dyes, ¶¶[0024, 0114] but while it has similar ingredients to the fusing agents, it is not considered a fusing agent because it does not absorb enough radiation to heat the build material ¶¶[0113-0114].
Regarding claim 16, the first fusing agent and second fusing agent have different light absorbers, the first fusing agent has the metal oxide (or cesium tungsten oxide example), and the second fusing agent can be carbon black or can additionally be any other listed in ¶[0011], but Kabalnov does not suggest that each fusing agent use the same light absorber, and purposely makes them different so they are used in different areas of the 3D part, such as the core versus the exterior, ¶[0046].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRGINIA L STONEHOCKER whose telephone number is (571)272-3431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. 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.
/V.L.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1766
/MARC S ZIMMER/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights