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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3-4 and 16-26 are pending and the subject of this FINAL Office Action. This is a CON of applicant's earlier Application No. 17/312674. All claims are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the invention claimed in the earlier application (that is, restriction (including lack of unity) would not be proper) and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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) A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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; or
(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.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 16-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2017188965, as evidenced by Wikipedia, Titanium dioxide, avail at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium_dioxide, accessed 12/18/2023.
As to claim 1, WO 2017188965 teaches material sets (e.g. kit) with fusing agent comprising white pigment titanium dioxide (TiO2) or zinc oxide nanoparticles (para. 0026); powder bed material (Abstract); and detailing agent (Abstract, for example). As to the diameter of TiO2, they must be within 2-500nm in order to be dispersible and consider nanoparticles, and are sold at this size (see WO 2017188965, paras. 0017-18; Wikipedia (“Nanoparticles [of TiO2] are typically smaller than 100 nanometres in diameter…”)). In other words, the claims point out what is already inherently present when using TiO2 nanoparticles.
As to claim 3, the white pigment is present at 2-10 wt% (para. 0026).
As to claim 4, a separate color agent such as detailing agent with colorant and aqueous/water can be used (paras. 0028, 0042).
As to claim 16, the oxides must be 10-500 nm (claim 1, above).
As to claims 17 and 26, average particle size 50-60 nm falls within average of 10-500 nm (id).
As to claims 18-19, WO 2017188965 teaches “The fusing agent can include water, a carbon black pigment, and a water-soluble co-solvent in an amount from 20 wt% to 60 wt%” (Abstract).
As to claim 20, see claim 1, above.
As to claim 21, the specification does not define what solvents fall within this functional description; rather only examples such as water, xylene, methyl isobutyl ketone, 3-methoxy-3-methyl-1-butyl acetate, ethyl acetate, butyl acetate, propylene glycol monomethyl ether, ethylene glycol mono tert-butyl ether, dipropylene glycol methyl ether, diethylene glycol butyl ether, ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, 3-Methoxy-3-Methyl-1-butanol, isobutyl alcohol, 1,4-butanediol, and N,N-dimethyl acetamide. WO 2017188965 teaches these solvents (para. 0032, for example).
As to claims 22-23, co-solvents such as 2-pyrrolidinone, N-methylpyrrolidone, 2-hydroxyethyl-2-pyrrolidone, 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol, tetraethylene glycol, 1,6-hexanediol, 1,5-hexanediol and 1,5-pentanediol are taught (paras. 0032-33).
As to claim 24, the surfactant can be SDS (para. 0034).
As to claim 25, see claims 22-24, above.
Claim Rejection - 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.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 16-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over WO2017069778 or ABBOTT (US20180147777), in further view of WO 2017188965.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing to combine familiar detailing agents specifically for use in multi jet fusion (MJF) systems of WO2017069778 or ABBOTT with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 1, WO2017069778 teaches systems (e.g. kit) with fusing agent comprising plasmonic resonance absorber that is indium tin oxide nanoparticles 2-500 nm (claim 1 and paras. 0028-29); and powder bed material (para. 0012).
As to claim 3, the indium tin oxide is present at 1-20 wt% (para. 0029-30).
As to claim 4, WO2017069778 teaches colorants in separate stocks (paras. 0046).
As to claim 16, the oxides are 10-500 nm (paras. 0028-29).
As to claims 17 and 26, average particle size 50-60 nm falls within average of 10-500 nm (id).
As to claims 18-19, WO WO2017069778 teaches “agent including: an aqueous or non-aqueous vehicle; and a plasmonic resonance absorber having absorption at wavelengths ranging from 800 nm to 4000 nm and having transparency at wavelengths ranging from 400 nm to 780 nm dispersed in the aqueous or non-aqueous vehicle” (claim 1).
As to claim 20, see claim 1, above.
As to claim 21, the specification does not define what solvents fall within this functional description; rather only examples such as water, xylene, methyl isobutyl ketone, 3-methoxy-3-methyl-1-butyl acetate, ethyl acetate, butyl acetate, propylene glycol monomethyl ether, ethylene glycol mono tert-butyl ether, dipropylene glycol methyl ether, diethylene glycol butyl ether, ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, 3-Methoxy-3-Methyl-1-butanol, isobutyl alcohol, 1,4-butanediol, and N,N-dimethyl acetamide. WO2017069778 teaches these solvents (para. 0036, for example).
As to claims 22-23, co-solvents such as 2-pyrrolidinone, N-methylpyrrolidone, 2-hydroxyethyl-2-pyrrolidone, 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol, tetraethylene glycol, 1,6-hexanediol, 1,5-hexanediol and 1,5-pentanediol are taught (paras. 0036).
As to claim 24, the surfactant can be LEG-1 (para. 0036).
As to claim 25, see claims 22-24, above.
As to claim 1, ABBOTT teaches systems (e.g. kit) with fusing agent comprising penetrating liquid functional material that is titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles about 50nm (claim 1, para. 0044); and powder bed material (para. 0018).
As to claim 3, the metal oxide is present at 5-15 wt% (claim 1).
As to claim 4, a separate color agent such as detailing agent with colorant and aqueous/water can be used (para. 0064).
As to claim 16, the oxides are 0.5-10 nm (para. 0041).
As to claims 18-19, ABBOTT teaches using agent has water, metal oxides and solvent (Abstract).
As to claim 20, see claim 1, above.
As to claim 21, the specification does not define what solvents fall within this functional description; rather only examples such as water, xylene, methyl isobutyl ketone, 3-methoxy-3-methyl-1-butyl acetate, ethyl acetate, butyl acetate, propylene glycol monomethyl ether, ethylene glycol mono tert-butyl ether, dipropylene glycol methyl ether, diethylene glycol butyl ether, ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, 3-Methoxy-3-Methyl-1-butanol, isobutyl alcohol, 1,4-butanediol, and N,N-dimethyl acetamide. ABBOTT teaches these solvents (para. 0062, for example).
As to claims 22-23, co-solvents such as 2-pyrrolidinone, N-methylpyrrolidone, 2-hydroxyethyl-2-pyrrolidone, 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol, tetraethylene glycol, 1,6-hexanediol, 1,5-hexanediol and 1,5-pentanediol are taught (paras. 0062-63).
As to claim 24, the surfactant can be LEG-1 (para. 0062).
As to claim 25, see claims 22-24, above.
WO2017069778 and ABBOTT do not explicitly teach detailing agents.
However, detailing agents were a known option in MJF of WO2017069778 and ABBOTT. For example, WO 2017188965, as explained above, teaches to include detailing agents in material sets for MJF fusing agent plus PA12 powder sets.
A skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the detailing agents of the prior art with the other MJF sets of WO2017069778 and ABBOTT in order to provide additional convenience for MJF applications. All of the above prior art is MJF art, in which detailing agents are a known option to control energy bleed. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing to combine familiar MJF detailing agents with the other MJF sets of WO2017069778 and ABBOTT in order to provide additional convenience for MJF applications with a reasonable expectation of success.
Double Patenting- Obvious Type
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Instant claims 1, 3-4 and 16-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over conflicting claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. US 12110404.
The instant claims are obvious over the conflicting claims because the conflicting claims anticipate the instant claims. Specifically, the conflicting claims teach a kit with fusing agent and detailing agent with the same components as here:
1. A three-dimensional printing kit, comprising:
a fusing agent consisting of:
water;
metal oxide nanoparticles dispersed in the water, the metal oxide nanoparticles selected from the group consisting of titanium dioxide nanoparticles, zinc oxide nanoparticles, cerium oxide nanoparticles, and a combination thereof and the metal oxide nanoparticles consist of metal oxide nanoparticles having an average particle size ranging from greater than 10 nm to about 500 nm; and
optionally, at least one additive selected from the group consisting of a dispersant, a co-solvent, a surfactant, a biocide, and a sequestering agent; and
a powder bed material comprising polymer particles.
4. The three-dimensional printing kit of claim 1, further comprising a detailing agent comprising a detailing compound.
5. The three-dimensional printing kit of claim 1, further comprising multiple colored agents each separate from the fusing agent, wherein the multiple colored agents independently comprise water and colorant.
6. A system for three-dimensional printing, comprising:
a fusing agent consisting of water, metal oxide nanoparticles dispersed in the water, and optionally at least one additive selected from the group consisting of a dispersant, a co-solvent, a surfactant, a biocide, and a sequestering agent, the metal oxide nanoparticles selected from the group consisting of titanium dioxide nanoparticles, zinc oxide nanoparticles, cerium oxide nanoparticles, and a combination thereof and the metal oxide nanoparticles consist of metal oxide nanoparticles having an average particle size ranging from greater than 10 nm to about 500 nm;
a powder bed material comprising polymer particles; and
a radiant electromagnetic energy source that emits about 80% to 100% electromagnetic energy within an absorption wavelength range of from about 300 nm to about 400 nm, the radiant electromagnetic energy source positioned to expose a layer of the powder bed material to the electromagnetic energy to selectively fuse the polymer particles in contact with the metal oxide nanoparticles.
8. The system of claim 6, further comprising a detailing agent ejectable onto a layer of the powder bed material, a colored agent ejectable onto the layer of the powder bed material, or a combination thereof, wherein the detailing agent comprises a detailing compound and the colored agent comprises water and a colorant.
9. The three-dimensional printing kit of claim 1, wherein the metal oxide nanoparticles consist of metal oxide nanoparticles having an average particle size ranging from about 50 nm to about 60 nm.
Thus, the conflicting claims anticipate the instant claims.
This is a CON of applicant's earlier Application No. 17/312674. All claims are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the invention claimed in the earlier application (that is, restriction (including lack of unity) would not be proper) and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 MELODY TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-1846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.
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.
/YUNG-SHENG M TSUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743