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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/16/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of claims 1-17, without traverse in the reply filed on 12/31/2025 is acknowledged.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soares Latour et al. (US 2024/0092014 A1), in view of Briffaud et al. (US 2023/0093134 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Soares Latour discloses a method for preparing a polyamide powder (this includes a blend of polyamides, polyamide (A) being construed as a first polymer) to be used in a laser sintering process which can be recycled several times, see at least abstract, [0001], [0110] – (construed as a method for adapting a first polymer material to be used as a feedstock for an extrusion deposition additive manufacturing process). Soares Latour further discloses the polyamide powder is reused from a previous cycle, see [0123] – (construed as the first polymer material after it has been used in at least one cycle of a first laser sintering process). And the polyamide powder is furnished as a mixture of a polyamide and at least one copolymer – (construed as a second polymer material) containing polyamide blocks and polyether blocks and filler, see [0081], [0098] – (construed as forming a composition by compounding the first polymer material with a filler and with a second polymer material).
Soares Latour does not explicitly disclose the copolymer has a molecular structure comprising aperiodic spacing of functional groups.
Briffaud discloses a process for treating a polyamide composition. The process to include a copolyamide PA 6/12, see at least [0097] – [0099]. Wherein it is within the scope of the inventive formulation in obtaining the polyamide composition to form the polymer having polyether and polyamide blocks which are distributed randomly along the polymer chain, see at least [0100], [0109] – (corresponds to a molecular structure comprising aperiodic spacing of functional groups). Moreover, as the specification of 06/28/2024, see [0030], defines copolyamide 6/12 is an example of a polymer having aperiodic spacings of functional groups and Briffaud favorably contemplates it’s use. The examiner considers the claimed aperiodic spacing of functional groups limitation is met by Briffaud’s disclosure as "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties". A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [see MPEP 2112.01].
One of ordinary skill would appreciate the disclosure of Briffaud in that such a treated polyamide composition allows for forming the composition to have a targeted “inherent viscosity”, see [0023] – [0027]. That is, substituting Soares Latour’s copolymer (comprising polyamide blocks and polyether blocks and filler) with Briffaud’s copolyamide PA 6/12 (comprising polyether and polyamide blocks which are distributed randomly along the polymer chain) provides a means for predictably tailoring the properties of the composition.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Soares Latour preparing a polyamide powder to be used in a laser sintering process which can be recycled several times to include a recycled polyamide composition to include polyether and polyamide blocks having a molecular structure comprising aperiodic spacing of functional groups as taught by Briffaud to enhance Soares Latour method such that the composition has a means for forming a composition with a targeted viscosity.
Regarding claims 2-3, modified Soares Latour discloses polyamide (A) is provided in any amount by weight of the total weight of the composition, see at least Soares Latour [0073], [0080]. And the use of carbon fiber as a filler contribute to the mechanical properties (for example modulus, elongation at break, impact strength) of the composition, see Briffaud [0117]. It being considered, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 [see MPEP 2144.05]. Accordingly, modified Soares Latour discloses the claimed composition except for the component weights. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the component weights as claimed, since it has been' held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to provide the weight amounts for the purpose of forming a composition having a predictable inherent viscosity while enhancing the mechanical properties thereof.
Regarding claims 4-6, modified Soares Latour discloses the composition as a feedstock in an extrusion deposition additive manufacturing process, see at least Soares Latour [0112], Briffaud [0003], [0011]; and pelletizing the composition for use by at least one of a pellet-fed extruder in an extrusion deposition system and a filament-forming extruder; and forming the composition into a filamentous form suitable for consumption by a filament-fed extrusion deposition system, see at least Briffaud [0066], [0074], [0082], [0125], [0130].
Regarding claim 7, modified Soares Latour discloses the polyamide powder is reused from a previous cycle, see [0123] – (construed as the first polymer material comprises unfused powder as a byproduct of the laser sintering process).
Regarding claim 8, modified Soares Latour discloses it is common during the laser sintering process the powder build material not touched by the radiation remain above its crystallization temperature for several hours, see [0005] – (construed as the first laser sintering process causes the first polymer material to increase in crystallinity).
Regarding claims 9-10, as previously discussed, modified Soares Latour discloses its inventive blend of polyamide powder (including the copolymer, construed as a second polymer material containing polyamide blocks and polyether blocks) is reused from a previous cycle, see [0123] – (construed as the second polymer material is obtained after being used in at least one cycle of a second laser sintering process). As to the second laser sintering process causes the second polymer material to decrease in crystallinity: Soares Latour further discloses it is common in laser sintering that powder held above its crystallization temperatures will lead to an increase in the molecular weight and thus in the viscosity of the polyamide, see [0005].
However, with its inventive polyamide composition it is possible to control, in particular to lower, stabilize or eliminate, the increase in viscosity and/or melting temperature of the polyamide powder used in successive runs, see at least [0047]. This being accomplished by having a difference between the crystallization temperature and the melting temperature of the polyamide powder to increase the window for working with the polyamide powder and to make the use thereof in a sintering process much easier, see [0094] – (construed as the second laser sintering process causes the second polymer material to decrease in crystallinity).
Regarding claims 11-15, modified Soares Latour discloses its polyamide (PA) is provided as PA 11, PA 12, see at least Soares Latour [0097] - [0099] – (construed as the first polymer material comprises one or more regular polyamide species; and the first polymer material comprises at least one of polyamide 12 and polyamide 11). And where the copolymer includes polyamide blocks, see at least Soares Latour [0081] and Briffaud [0100]. It being understood that polyamide blocks such as present in PA 11 and PA 12 inherently have a common amide moiety (polar functional group) which includes methylene groups occurring in a repeating pattern along each polymer chain – (construed as the first polymer material and second polymer material have a polar functional group in common; and the common polar functional group is an amide moiety; and the molecule structure of the first polymer material, the polar functional group and methylene groups occur in a repeating pattern along each polymer chain).
Moreover, as the specification of 06/28/2024, see [0023], defines polyamide 12 is an example having the aforementioned characteristics and Soares Latour/Briffaud favorably contemplates it’s use. The examiner considers the claimed characteristics is met by Soares Latour/Briffaud’s disclosures as "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties". A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [see MPEP 2112.01].
Regarding claims 16-17, as previously discussed, modified Soares Latour discloses both the first polymer and second polymer are polyamides having repeating pattern of amide functional groups and methylene units, see the rejection of claims 11-15 and the copolymer/second polymer comprises aperiodic spacings of functional groups, see rejection of claim 1 – (construed as molecules of the second polymer comprise randomly varying quantities of methylene groups between amide functional groups; and molecules of the second polymer comprise random occurrences of either a first quantity of methylene units or a second quantity of methylene units between each pair of amide functional groups).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached on 5712705545. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749