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
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/20/2026.
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 8 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 8 recites the broad recitation urethane acrylate oligomer in line 2, and the claim also recites an aliphatic polyester urethane acrylate oligomer in line 3 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. 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 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)(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 and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Lund et al (US2021/0018835).
Lund set forth thiol-acrylate photopolymerizable resin compositions, wherein said compositions, may be used for additive manufacturing, comprise a crosslinking component; at least one monomer and/or oligomer; and a chain transfer agent comprising at least one of a thiol, a secondary alcohol, and/or a tertiary amine—see abstract.
Lund explicitly teaches resin compositions comprising about 4 to 6 phr of pentaerythritol tetrakis (3-mercaptobutylate); about 40% to 50% of CN9167; and about 50% to 60% of hydroxypropyl acrylate, wherein hydroxypropyl acrylate is inherently a hydrophilic/water-soluble monomer—see [0033]. Said resin composition is configured to be cured by exposure to light by addition of a photoinitiator—see [0060]. Said composition may further comprise an inhibitor that reacts with free radicals to give products that may not be able to induce further polymerization, which may include at least one of hydroquinone, 2-methoxyhydroquinone, Butylated hydroxytoluene, diallyl Thiourea, and/or diallyl Bisphenol A—see [0061]. Said resin composition may further comprise poly (ethylene glycol), polybutadiene, polydimethylsiloxane acrylate, and a poly (styrene-co-maleic anhydride) copolymer—see [0059].
Regarding claims 1 and 6-11: Lund explicitly sets forth a resin composition comprising 70 parts by weight of hydroxypropyl acrylate (a hydrophilic acrylate monomer); 30 parts by weight of an aliphatic urethane diacrylate oligomer having urethane hydrolysable groups; 5 parts by weight of an acrylate containing polydimethylsiloxane and 5 parts by weight of a thiol chain transfer agent (4.5 wt.%), pentaerthritol tetrakis (3-mercaptobutylate) ([0049])—see table 4 resin DR. Said composition comprises 63.3 wt. % of a hydrophilic monomeric curable material, 27.7 wt. % of an oligomeric curable material having a hydrolysable species; and 4.5 wt. % of a chain transfer agent. Thus claims 1, 6, 9 and 11 are anticipated. The composition comprises a difunctional aliphatic urethane acrylate oligomer. Thus claims 7-8 are anticipated. The chain transfer agent is a thiol compound, pentaerthritol tetrakis (3-mercaptobutylate). Thus claim 10 is anticipated.
Regarding claim 2: Lund explicitly set forth a composition comprising 663.3 g of hydroxypropyl acrylate; 1.7 g of TPO (photoinitiator); 0.24 g of a dye (BBOT); 284.g of urethane diacrylate, CN9004; and 47.4 g of chain transfer agent, pentaerthritol tetrakis (3-mercaptobutylate)—see example 3, Table 3. Said composition comprising TPO, phenylbis(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl) phosphine oxide, photoinitiator. Thus, claim 2 is anticipated.
Regarding claim 3: Lund explicitly sets forth a composition comprising 45 parts by weight of hydroxybutyl acrylate (hydrophilic monomer); 23 parts by weight of isobornyl acrylate; 2 parts by weight of trimethylolpropane triacrylate; 2 parts by weight of a urethane acrylate oligomer; 5 parts by weight of PEI, chain transfer agent: pentaerthritol tetrakis (3-mercaptobutylate); 2 parts by weight of a photoinitiator (TPO); 0.2 parts by weight of BHT (stabilizer); and 0.05 of BBOT (optical brightener). The BHT anticipate claim 3.
Regarding claim 4: Lund sets forth the use of non-reactive polymers as further additives in said resin composition, such as poly (ethylene glycol), polybutadiene, polydimethylsiloxane acrylate, and a poly (styrene-co-maleic anhydride) copolymer—see [0059].
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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lund et al (cited above).
Lund is set forth above as anticipating the instantly claimed resin composition. Lund does not expressly set forth a resin composition having a dynamic viscosity of 5 cP to 30 cP at a temperature of 80 deg. C. However, Lund explicitly sets forth a composition comprising 55 parts of hydroxypropyl acrylate (hydrophilic monomer); 45 parts of an aromatic urethane acrylate oligomer (hydrolysable urethane groups); and 5 phr of a chain transfer agent: pentaerthritol tetrakis (3-mercaptobutylate) having a viscosity of 58 cP at 20 deg. C. It is deemed since viscosity is inversely proportional to temperature, it is deemed the viscosity of 58 cP at 20 deg., in absence of evidence to the contrary, should be at least between 5 and 30 cP at 80 deg. C.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 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. Lund sets forth tensile strengths and glass transition temperatures outside of the instantly claimed properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANZA L MCCLENDON whose telephone number is (571)272-1074. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, Heidi Riviere-Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/SANZA L. McCLENDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
SMc
Prosecution Insights