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 1-11 and 16-20 in the reply filed on 4/16/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the special technical feature is not taught in the prior art. This is not found persuasive because the applicant has not demonstrated that the prior art fails to teach the special technical feature. The special technical feature is taught in the prior art, as demonstrated below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4/16/2026.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
In chemical patent abstracts for compounds or compositions, the general nature of the compound or composition should be given as well as its use, e.g., “The compounds are of the class of alkyl benzene sulfonyl ureas, useful as oral anti-diabetics.” Exemplification of a species could be illustrative of members of the class. For processes, the type of reaction, reagents and process conditions should be stated, generally illustrated by a single example unless variations are necessary.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not disclose the general nature of the compounds present in the composition. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites several broad recitations, such as polyolefin, and the claim also recites polyethylene which is an example of the narrower statements of the range/limitations. Other examples include polyether ketone and polyarylether ketone, and polyamide and copolyimide. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the second polymer" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baumann et al. (2004/0138363).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6: Baumann et al. teach a powder comprising composite particles which are entirely comprising 6 wt% of a titanium dioxide (claimed NIR-absorbing component) core particle coated with a precipitated polyamide 12 polymer [Examples; particularly Example 2]. The powder of Baumann et al. is capable of functioning in the claimed capacity.
Regarding claims 2-3, 5 and 16-18: Since titanium dioxide is the same compound as claimed, and disclosed in the instant specification, it will possess the claimed absorption and L*. The courts have stated that 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, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." Further, if it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position.
Regarding claims 7 and 20: The titanium dioxide is 100 wt% of the core particle of Baumann et al. [Examples].
Regarding claim 8: Baumann et al. teach the claimed average particle diameter [0043; Examples].
Regarding claims 9 and 10: Since more than one polyamide 12 resin will coat the titanium oxide particles, the addition polyamide 12 resin coating the particle is considered the claimed second polymer [Examples]. Therefore, the claimed first and second polymer are the same, and are polyamide 12.
Regarding claim 11: The composite particles are 100 wt% of the powder in Baumann et al. [Examples].
Regarding claim 19: Baumann et al. teach 1 wt% of titanium dioxide [Example 3].
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann et al. (2004/0138363) as applied to claim 1 above further in view of Diekmann et al. (2013/0183529).
Baumann et al. teach selective sintering of the polymer particles to provide another layer of polymer on the particle [0036].
Baumann et al. fail to specify a particular polymer as the second polymer.
However, Diekmann et al. teach an analogous powder, wherein a second polymer is added, by selective laser sintering [0020], which differs from the precipitated first polymer [0015]. The second polymer is a polycarbonate, a polymethyl methacrylate, a polypropylene, a polybutylene terephthalate, a polyethylene terephthalate, a polyether ether ketone or a polyphthalamide [0019].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use polycarbonate, a polymethyl methacrylate, a polypropylene, a polybutylene terephthalate, a polyethylene terephthalate, a polyether ether ketone or polyphthalamide as taught by Diekmann et al. as the second layer polymer in Baumann et al.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN USELDING whose telephone number is (571)270-5463. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am to 6:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/JOHN E USELDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights