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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 10 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kasperchik et al (WO 2018/156207 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kasperchik et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0002], [0013], [0015], [0033], [0082], [0083], [0124], [0125], [0127], [0169], [0171], [0191] and [0197]; Figures 2 and 3F) teaches a process (see paragraph [0002] (three-dimensional printing is used to make three-dimensional parts) of Kasperchik et al), including (a) selectively applying a fusing agent onto a portion of a build material, wherein the fusing agent includes a radiation-absorbing dye dissolved in an aqueous liquid carrier (see paragraphs [0013] (a binder fluid (i.e., a fusing agent) is applied to each build material layer; binder fluid includes an active material capable of absorbing radiation), [0015] (binder fluid includes water) and [0191] (active material in binder includes near-infrared absorbing dyes) of Kasperchik et al); (b) exposing the selectively applied fusing agent to radiation to produce heat energy to fuse the portion of build material to form a layer of a 3D printed object (see Figure 2, paragraph [0082] (heater 32, 32’ may be a conductive heater or a radiative heater) of Kasperchik et al); and (c) thermally treating the 3D printed object at a temperature above 70°C (see Figures 2 and 3F, paragraphs [0082] (additional heating may take place in a heater that is separate from printing system 10), [0083] (separate heaters include conventional furnaces or ovens), [0169] (cured intermediate 42 may be heated to form a 3D part) and [0171] (heating takes place at from about 250-600°C) of Kasperchik et al).
Regarding claim 4, see paragraphs [0033] (polymeric build material particles have a melting temperature of from about 50-400°C) and [0171] (heating takes place at from about 250-600°C) of Kasperchik et al.
Regarding claim 5, see paragraph [0033] (polymeric build material particles have a melting temperature of from about 50-400°C) of Kasperchik et al.
Regarding claim 6, see paragraphs [0197] (absorber is an inorganic pigment) and [0198] (the amount of active material ranges from greater than 0 wt% to about 40 wt%) of Kasperchik et al.
Regarding claim 7, see paragraph [0124] (the primary solvent may be water or a non-aqueous (organic) solvent) of Kasperchik et al.
Regarding claim 8, see paragraphs [0124] (organic solvents) and [0125] (Organic solvents) of Kasperchik et al.
Regarding claim 10, see paragraph [0125] (1, 2-alcohols, 1, 5-alcohols, 1, 5-pentanediol, 1, 6-hexanediol) of Kasperchik et al.
Regarding claim 12, see paragraph [0127] (co-solvents in binder fluid may be present from about 1 wt% to about 50 wt%) of Kasperchik et al.
Regarding claim 13, see paragraph [0191] (active material in binder includes infrared light absorbing colorants) of Kasperchik et al.
Regarding claim 14, the printed 3D object of Kasperchik et al is made from the same materials and made by the same process as recited in claim 1 and thus, the 3D printed object of Kasperchik et al has the same functions and properties as the 3D printed object made by the claimed process (see MPEP §2112.01(I) and §2112.01(II)).
Regarding claim 15, this claim is a product-by-process claim, and even though product-by-process claims are defined by and limited by the process, the determination of patentability of product-by-process claims is based on the product itself, not on its method of production (see MPEP §2113 (I) and §2113(II)). The printed 3D object of Kasperchik et al is made form the same materials as recited in claim 1 and thus, the printed 3D object of Kasperchik et al is the same as the printed 3D object recited in claim 15.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasperchik et al (WO 2018/156207 A1) as applied to claims 1, 4-8, 10 and 12-15 above, and further in view of Bredt et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0003189 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Kasperchik et al does not teach (1) that the first organic solvent is a plasticizer. Bredt et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0004] and [0027]) teaches a process (see paragraph [0004] (three-dimensional printing process with a binder) of Bredt et al), wherein the first organic solvent is a plasticizer (see paragraph [0027] (solvent may include diethylene glycol butyl ether) of Bredt et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute diethylene glycol butyl ether (as taught by Bredt et al) for the first organic solvent (as taught by Kasperchik et al) because the substitution of one known material for another known material would have yielded predictable results (e.g., the manufacture of a 3D object by three-dimensional printing) to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, see paragraph [0027] (diethylene glycol butyl ether) of Bredt et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rowe et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0106412 A1) teaches controlling binder migration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEO B. TENTONI whose telephone number is (571)272-1209. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:00 ET 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, Christina A. Johnson can be reached at (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 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.
LEO B. TENTONI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/LEO B TENTONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights