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
The restriction mailed 02/20/2026 is withdrawn. An updated Restriction requirement is found below:
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-13, drawn to a method, classified in B29C64/194.
II. Claims 14-20, drawn to a product, classified in B29K2077/00.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process. The product as claimed does not require plasma or solution treating the semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer prior to coalescing a build material layer of the 3D object. Further, the process as claimed does not require using a thermoplastic polymer with an average crystal size ranging from about 2 µm to about 10 µm.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Anna Sarcheck on 05/12/2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of claims 1-13. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Birecki et al. (US20170312983).
Regarding claim 1, Birecki teaches a method for three-dimensional (3D) printing (Abstract: Provided in one example herein is a three-dimensional (“3D”) printing method), comprising:
solution treating a native semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer, thereby forming a treated semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer ([0021]-[0023] and [0024] The particles may be present in the form of a powder, a liquid, a paste, or a gel. Examples of the polymer in the particles include semi-crystalline thermoplastics);
applying the treated semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer to form a build material layer ([0063]-[0064]; Figure 5A));
based on a 3D object model, selectively applying a fusing agent on at least a portion of the build material layer ([0068] and Figure 5C); and
exposing the build material layer to electromagnetic radiation to coalesce the treated semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer in the at least the portion to form a layer of a 3D object ([0071] and Figure 5D).
Regarding claim 4, Birecki teaches the method as defined in claim 1 wherein after the solution treating of the semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer, the method further comprises reacting the treated semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer with a functional agent to modify a surface of the treated semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer with a functional group of an amine ([0021] the polymeric particles including the carboxylic acid and/or amino functional groups at the surface may be treated with an amino compound having the general structure RNH R′ XR″, where R is H or an alkyl group with 1 to 18 carbon atoms) or a silane ([0023] In another example, the polymeric particles including the amino functional groups at the surface are treated with chloro or alkoxy silanes. The general structure of a suitable silane is YSi(R.sub.2)R″, where Y is Cl, OCH.sub.3, or OCH.sub.2CH.sub.3; R is an alkyl or alkoxy group with 1 to 18 carbon atoms).
Regarding claim 10, Birecki teaches the method as defined in claim 4 wherein the functional group is the silane functional group and is prepared using a silane coupling agent ([0023] In another example, the polymeric particles including the amino functional groups at the surface are treated with chloro or alkoxy silanes. The general structure of a suitable silane is YSi(R.sub.2)R″, where Y is Cl, OCH.sub.3, or OCH.sub.2CH.sub.3; R is an alkyl or alkoxy group with 1 to 18 carbon atoms).
Regarding claim 11, Birecki teaches the method as defined in claim 1 wherein the native semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer is selected from the group consisting of a polyamide, a polyolefin, and a polyurethane ([0024]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birecki et a. (US20170312983), and further in view of Rodgers et al. (US20150251353).
Regarding claim 2, Birecki teaches the method as defined in claim 1 and that the semi-crystalline polymer can comprise polyamide ([0024]). However, Birecki fails to teach wherein the treated semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer crystallizes within 380 seconds.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to additive manufacturing, Rodgers teaches a semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer comprising polyamide that crystallizes between 30 seconds and 60 seconds ([0069] and [0119] For instance, if a given pure semi-crystalline polymer (i.e., non-blend) is capable of crystallizing to its fullest extent in about 3 seconds in the region between its hot crystallization temperature T.sub.c,hot and its cold crystallization temperature T.sub.c,cold, and if it quickly cools down such that it resides in this region for about one second, it may form about one-third of is achievable of crystalline regions. In comparison, the crystallization impedance of the build material blend may require more than a 10 to 20-fold increase in the time required to fully crystallize). A crystallization time between 30 seconds and 60 seconds allows for discontinuous changes in volume of the semi-crystalline polymer, resulting in reduced residual stresses on the printed layers ([0120]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the treated semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer of Birecki crystallize between 30 seconds and 60 seconds, as taught by Rodgers, for the benefit of forming discontinuous changes in volume that result in residual stresses on the printed layers.
Claim(s) 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birecki et a. (US20170312983), and further in view of Moussa (US20160318250).
Regarding claim 3, Birecki teaches the method as defined in claim 1.
However, Birecki to teach wherein the solution treating of the native semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer is accomplished in-line with the applying of the treated semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to additive manufacturing, Moussa teaches plasma or solution treating of a polymer is accomplished in-line with the applying of the treated thermoplastic polymer ([0092]). Treating the polymer in-line allows for the formation of relatively strong non-covalent bonds between particles and coalescing materials ([0091]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the native semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer treated in-line, as taught by Moussa, for the benefit of forming relatively strong non-covalent bonds between the treated polymer and coalescing materials. Further, treating the semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer inline can prevent the treated polymer from being modified during transport, which could result in a less effective formation of non-covalent bonds between the treated polymer and coalescing materials.
Regarding claim 12, Birecki teaches the method as defined in claim 11. However, Birecki fails to teach wherein the treated semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer includes a filler selected from the group consisting of titanium dioxide and glass.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to additive manufacturing, Moussa teaches the polymer includes glass as a filler ([0049]). Glass fillers may prevent the polymer material from exhibiting excessive dust or agglomeration ([0050]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the treated semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer Birecki include glass as a filler, as taught by Moussa, for the benefit of preventing the polymer material from exhibiting excessive dust or agglomeration.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birecki et a. (US20170312983), and further in view of Wu et al. (US5922161).
Regarding claim 5, Birecki teaches the method as defined in claim 1.
Birecki teaches solution treating the semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer, including polyamide, but fails to teach plasma treating is performed and wherein the plasma treating: involves exposing the native semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer to a gas selected from the group consisting of oxygen, carbon dioxide, ammonia, and a combination thereof; and is accomplished for a time period ranging from about 3 minutes to about 80 minutes.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to surface treating thermoplastic polymers, including polyamide (col 3 line 6-11) in particulate or powder form (col 4 line 6-8), Wu teaches oxidizing the surface of polymeric material by chemical oxidation or plasma treatment (col 4 line 21-23). During plasma treatment, the thermoplastic polymer is exposed to oxygen or carbon dioxide gas (col 4 line 25-29) for a period between 0.1 seconds to 30 minutes (col 4 line 48-50). Plasma treatment is known to significantly improve bonding ability of the treated polymers or achieve desired levels of wettability (col 2 line 2-8).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer of Birecki treated by plasma, wherein during the plasma treatment the polymer is exposed to oxygen or carbon dioxide gas for a time period ranging from about 0.1 seconds to about 30 minutes, as taught by Wu, to significantly improve bonding ability of the treated polymers or achieve desired levels of wettability. Birecki teaches improving bonding ability and tailoring wettability by surface chemical treatments, and therefore one of ordinary skill would look to Wu to apply the known technique of plasma treatment for polymeric surfaces to achieve surface tailoring of thermoplastic polymers, including polyamide, in the same way (increasing the number of oxygen groups on the polymer surface).
Claim(s) 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birecki et a. (US20170312983), and further in view of Caldwell et al. (US3418066).
Regarding claim 6 and claim 9, Birecki teaches the method as defined in claim 1, wherein the solution treating is performed ([0021]-[0023]). However, Birecki fails to teach wherein the solution treating involves exposing the native semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer to an oxygen-introducing liquid, thereby forming an oxygen solution-treated semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer as the treated semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to surface treating thermoplastic polymers, including polyamide (col 2 line 10-18) in powder form (col 2 line 19-21), Caldwell teaches solution treating involves exposing the native semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer to an oxygen-introducing liquid, wherein the oxygen-introducing liquid is hydrogen peroxide, thereby forming an oxygen solution-treated semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer as the treated semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer (col 2 line 22-29 and Table 1 under col 5). The oxidation method of Caldwell allows for oxidation of both amorphous and crystalline forms (col 2 line 14-18) and can control the number of activated sites based on a catalyst concentration and varying exposure to the oxidizing agent (col 2 line 25-29).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the solution treatment of Birecki involve exposing the native semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer to hydrogen peroxide, thereby forming an oxygen solution-treated semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer as the treated semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer, to improve the wettability of both amorphous and crystalline forms while controlling the number of activated sites that tailor the wettability. Birecki teaches improving bonding ability and tailoring wettability by surface chemical treatments, and therefore one of ordinary skill would look to apply the known technique of hydrogen peroxide for surface oxidation of thermoplastic polymers to achieve surface tailoring of thermoplastic polymers, including polyamide, in the same way (increasing the number of oxygen groups on the polymer surface).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birecki et a. (US20170312983) and Caldwell et al. (US3418066), and further in view of Saraf et al. (“Comparison of three methods for generating superhydrophobic, superoleophobic nylon nonwoven surfaces”, J Mater Sci, 46, 5751–5760, 2011) and Novak et al. (“Surface Energy and Adhesive Properties of Polyamide 12 Modified by Barrier and Radio-Frequency Discharge Plasma”, Monatshefte fur Chemie, 137, 943–952, 2006).
Regarding claim 7, Birecki modified with Caldwell teaches the method as defined in claim 6. However, Birecki and Caldwell fail to teach wherein the oxygen solution-treated semi- crystalline thermoplastic polymer has a surface energy density greater than 41 mN/m.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to surface treating thermoplastic polymers, including polyamide (Abstract: We have explored three different techniques to achieve superhydrophobicity and superoleophobicity using hydroentangled nylon nonwoven fabric: pulsed plasma polymerization of 1H,1H,2H,2Hperfluorodecyl acrylate (PFAC8), microwave-assisted condensation of 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecyltrimethoxysilane (FS), and FS condensation through wet processing), Saraf teaches solution treatment and plasma treatment produces similar changes in contact angle in comparison to a nylon film that has not been treated (see Table 1 on pg. 5756 where contact angle of plasma processed film is 120-122° and solution processed film is 120-124°).
Further, in the same field of endeavor pertaining to surface treating thermoplastic polymers, including polyamide (see “Summary. The polyamide 12 foil with sufficient surface and adhesive properties to other substrates can be prepared by discharge plasma modification” on pg. 943), Novak teaches plasma treatment yields surface energies ranging from 46.1 to 54.6 mJ/m2 which is equivalent to mN/m based on varying plasma treatment times (see Table 1 on pf. 944) and that plasma treatment results in improved polymer bonding and adhesion (see “For improvement of bonding and printing of polymer a surface barrier discharge plasma in N2 and O2 as well as a radio-frequency discharge plasma in air has been studied. A significant increase in surface energy of the polymer as well as in strength of adhesive joint to more polar polymer was found” under summary on pf. 943).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the oxygen solution-treated semi- crystalline thermoplastic polymer of Birecki modified with Caldwell have a surface energy density greater than 41 mN/m, as taught by Novak, to achieve the predictable result of increased adhesion and bonding. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success for the surface energy density to be greater than 41 mN/m, since Saraf teaches solution treatment and plasma treatment produces similar changes in contact angle during treatment of polyamide films. Given that the contact angle is related to the surface energy by Equation 3 shown on pg. 5756 of Saraf, one of ordinary skill would see comparable changes in surface energy of solution-processed and plasma treated polyamide.
Claim(s) 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birecki et a. (US20170312983), and further in view of Hostettler et al. (US5849368).
Regarding claim 6, Birecki teaches the method as defined in claim 1, wherein the solution treating is performed ([0021]-[0023]). However, Birecki fails to teach wherein the solution treating involves exposing the native semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer to an oxygen-introducing liquid, thereby forming an oxygen solution-treated semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer as the treated semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to surface treating thermoplastic polymers, including polyamide (Abstract: The process is especially suited to the hydrophilicization of intrinsically non-polar and hydrophobic polymeric plastic materials, such as polyethylenes, nylons-11 and nylons-12 and col 9 line 49-53), Hostettler teaches solution treating the polymer involves exposing the polymer to an oxygen-introducing liquid, thereby forming an oxygen solution-treated thermoplastic polymer as the treated thermoplastic polymer (col 15 line 6-19).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the solution treatment of Birecki involve exposing the native semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer to an oxygen-introducing liquid, thereby forming an oxygen solution-treated semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer as the treated semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer, to affix hydroxyl, carboxyl and carbonyl groups to the substrate surface, thereby rendering the surface more polar and activated. Birecki teaches improving bonding ability and tailoring wettability by surface chemical treatments, and therefore one of ordinary skill would look to apply the known technique of oxygen-introducing liquids for surface oxidation of thermoplastic polymers to achieve surface tailoring of thermoplastic polymers, including polyamide, in the same way (increasing the number of oxygen groups on the polymer surface).
Regarding claim 8, Birecki modified with Hostettler teaches the method as defined in claim 6.
Further, Hostettler teaches wherein the method further comprises reacting the oxygen solution-treated semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer with a functional agent to modify a surface of the oxygen solution-treated semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer, wherein the functional group is an amine (-NH2) functional group that is prepared using ammonia (col 15 line 6-19). The amine functionalization allows for a durable adhering to other coatings that may be subsequently applied to the polymer surface (col 1 line 12-21).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the solution-treated semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer of Birecki modified with Hostettler be further reacted with ammonia to form an amine (-NH2) functional group, for the benefit of providing a durable adhering surface for other coatings that may be subsequently applied to the polymer surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is 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 closest prior art is Birecki et al. (US20170312983), Pappas et al. (“Surface modification of polyamide fibers and films using atmospheric plasmas”, Surface & Coatings Technology, 201, 4384–4388, 2006), and Novak et al. (“Surface Energy and Adhesive Properties of Polyamide 12 Modified by Barrier and Radio-Frequency Discharge Plasma”, Monatshefte fur Chemie, 137, 943–952, 2006).
Regarding claim 13, Birecki teaches the method as defined in claim 1.
Pappas teaches an increase of surface energy density of the native semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer by 10.5 mN/m and 14 mN/m (see Table 1 on pg. 4385).
Novak teaches a surface energy density increase ranging from 11 mJ/m2 to 20 mJ/m2.
Therefore, Birecki , Pappas, and Novak either alone or in combination fail to teach wherein the plasma or solution treating of the native semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer increases a surface energy density of the native semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer by about 3 mN/m, by about 3.5 mN/m, by about 3.85 mN/m, or by about 5 mN/m.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLA MACHNESS whose telephone number is (408)918-7587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:30-2:30 PT.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/ARIELLA MACHNESS/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights