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 .
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendment filed 08/04/2026:
Claim 1 is pending.
Claims 2-13 are allowed.
Claims 14-17 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Claims 18 and 19 are cancelled.
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 1 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.
Regarding claim 1, oxygen-solution treatments are interpreted as treatments that introduce or incorporate oxygen at the polymer surface to form oxygen bonds (Applicant’s disclosure discusses in [0023] The treated polymer has a surface oxygen content that is increased relative its native semi- crystalline thermoplastic polymer. The introduction of oxygen at the surface of the polymer results in the formation of carbon-oxygen bonds, which have a greater polarity than the initial carbon-hydrogen bonds of the native semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer). Further, Applicant provides examples of oxygen-introducing liquids suitable for the solution treatment, including sodium hypochlorite and hydrogen peroxide (see [0025] of Applicant’s disclosure) and notes that amine, urethane, and epoxy functional groups are used in place of oxygen functionalization in [0037] (“A compound (in the gas phase) with the desired functional group is introduced in place of oxygen during the plasma treatment process. As examples, NH3 may be used to produce amines; urea, ethyl carbamate, or some other carbamic acid derivative”). Therefore, it is unclear how ammonia for functionalizing with an amine group, urea and a carbamic acid derivative for functionalizing with a urethane, or a glycidyl methacrylate for functionalizing with an epoxy provide oxygen-solution treatments for polymers that are not treated or functionalized with oxygen groups. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret oxygen-solution treatments as solution treatments. However, clarification and correction is required.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birecki, and further in view of Hostettler et al. (US5849368), Pappas et al. (“Surface modification of polyamide fibers and films using atmospheric plasmas” Surface & Coatings Technology 201, 2006, pg. 4384–4388) and Tusek et al. (“Surface characterisation of NH3 plasma treated polyamide 6 Foils” Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 195, 2001, pg. 81–95).
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 an solution treated semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer ([0020]-[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 solution 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 solution treated semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer in the at least the portion to form a layer of a 3D object ([0071] and Figure 5D).
However, Birecki fails to teach reacting the solution treated semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer with a functional agent to modify a surface of the solution treated semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer with a functional group selected from the group consisting of: i) an amine (-NH2) functional group that is prepared using ammonia; ii) a urethane functional group that is prepared using a compound selected from the group consisting of urea and a carbamic acid derivative; and iii) an epoxy functional group that is prepared using a glycidyl methacrylate.
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 reacting the solution-treated semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer with a functional agent to modify a surface of the 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 be further reacted with ammonia to form an amine (-NH2) functional group, as taught by Hostettler, for the benefit of providing a durable adhering surface for other coatings that may be subsequently applied to the polymer surface.
However, Birecki modified with Hostettler fails to teach the 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, Pappas teaches the surface tension increases from 34.62 mN/m to 48.56 mN/m after plasma treatment with nitrogen (see Table 1 on pg. 4385). The increase in surface tension due to the attachment of nitrogen functionalities that increase the surface hydrophilicity (“In the same field of endeavor pertaining to surface treating thermoplastic polymers, including polyamide”- see pg. 4386) is associated with a decrease in the water contact angle (see Figure 1).
Further, in the same field of endeavor pertaining to surface treating thermoplastic polymers, including polyamide, Tusek similarly teaches plasma treating polyamide with ammonia plasma results in a decreasing in contact angle (see Figure 4 on pg. 88) also due to the attachment of nitrogen functionalities that increase the surface hydrophilicity (“Contact angle is considered as a measure of wettability of surfaces. When water is used as the testing liquid, hydrophilicity and hydrophobicity of surfaces can be determined. The introduction of polar groups during NH3 plasma treatment makes polymer surfaces less hydrophobic”- see pg. 84).
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 solution-treated semi-
crystalline thermoplastic polymer of Birecki modified with Hostettler have a surface energy
density greater than 41 mN/m, as taught by Pappas and as suggested by Tusek, 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 Pappas teaches the surface tension for plasma treatment with nitrogen increases the surface energy density and decreases the contact angle due to an increase in hydrophilicity, and Tusek similarly teaches a decrease in the contact angle after treatment with ammonia due to increased hydrophilicity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-13 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 13 was previously indicated as allowable subject matter in the Office Action mailed 05/15/2026. Claim 13 is now written in independent form and has incorporated the subject matter of claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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