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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 57. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Consistent with MPEP § 2111, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation wherein “the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” However, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 f.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993.) It is also noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is further noted that in general, when reading a preamble in the context of an entire claim, preamble recitations may not be limiting if the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations; and in such case, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.
In light of the above, the preamble limitation “for three-dimensional shaping” of instant claims 1-6 has not been given any patentable weight because that the body of the claim(s) describe(s) a complete invention and the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations and appears to be solely directed to the intended end use of the “powder material” (e.g., any particulate or pulverized shape). It is also noted that given the open transitional phrases of “comprising” and “containing” as recited in instant claim 1, as well as the description of the claimed “block polypropylene” per the instant specification at Paragraph 0046 as preferably comprising homo polypropylene, a resin powder comprising/containing nanofibers and “block polypropylene” that includes homo polypropylene may read upon both the first resin powder and the second resin powder. Further, it is noted that the claimed “three-dimensional shaped article” of instant claims 7-11 has been interpreted as an article having any shape with three dimensions including a flat film of a given thickness, or a simple cube or block.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshikawa (JP2019-056088A, please refer to the attached machine translation for the below cited sections). Yoshikawa discloses a fiber-reinforced composite material having improved dispersibility of resin and cellulose nanofibers as well as high strength and lightweight properties, containing polyolefin, cellulose nanofibers, antioxidants, and light stabilizers, preferably prepared by kneading a mixture thereof in a twin-screw kneader at a relatively low temperature; wherein the polyolefin is preferably polypropylene that may be a homopolymer, a random copolymer or a block copolymer, and more preferably polypropylene homopolymer such that the cellulose nanofibers can be more uniformly dispersed in the fiber-reinforced composite material (Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0006-0012, 0035, and 0057). Yoshikawa discloses that the cellulose nanofibers are present in a content of preferably 5% by mass or more, more preferably 40 to 50% by mass in 100% by mass of the fiber-reinforced composite material such that the fiber reinforced composite material can be used as a masterbatch and may be diluted with a polypropylene homopolymer, a polypropylene block copolymer or a polypropylene random copolymer to produce a fiber-reinforced material having a cellulose nanofiber content of preferably 3 to 20% by mass in 100% by mass of the diluted material that can be used for molded products according to various applications in a desired shape such as the articles recited in Paragraph 0058 (Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0013-0015, 0035-0036, and 0058). Yoshikawa specifically discloses an example wherein 10 parts by mass of a masterbatch prepared by kneading a modified cellulose powder with pelletized homopolymer polypropylene to form a masterbatch comprising 40% of cellulose nanofibers dispersed in polypropylene homopolymer (“first resin powder containing homo polypropylene and nanofiber” as in instant claim 1, particularly “cellulose nanofiber” as in instant claim 5), was diluted with 30 parts by mass of a polypropylene block copolymer (“second resin powder containing block polypropylene” as in instant claim 1, and inherently as in instant claim 6) as a dilution polypropylene (thus a ratio of 3.0 as in instant claims 2-3) to prepare a test piece of a fiber reinforced composite material containing 10% cellulose nanofibers (Example 1) having a dispersed structure as shown in Fig. 1 (as in instant claims 8-9 with the nanofiber masterbatch dispersed in the block copolymer) and having properties as shown in Table 1 including bending properties in accordance with JIS K7171 of a flexural modulus of 1990 MPa (1.99 GPa) and a flexural strength of 43.1 MPa (as in instant claims 10-11), and impact properties as measured by Izod impact tests in accordance with JIS K7110 (e.g., a vertical sample vs a horizontal sample in the Charpy method of JIS K7111) of notched impact strength of 3.72 kJ/m2 and unnotched impact strength of 21.26 kJ/m2 (reading upon the claimed Charpy unnotched impact strength range of 5.5 kJ/m2 or more as in instant claim 10 given known relationships between the two for a given material). Hence, Yoshikawa anticipates instant claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8-11.
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.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8-11 above, and further discussed below.
The teachings of Yoshikawa are discussed in detail above (and incorporated herein by reference), wherein it is again noted that Yoshikawa specifically teaches that a shaped article of fiber-reinforced composite material may be molded by mixing a masterbatch comprising cellulose nanofibers dispersed in polypropylene homopolymer with a polypropylene block copolymer as a diluent as in working Example 1, and although Yoshikawa utilizes 40% of cellulose nanofiber in the masterbatch such that the content of the nanofiber is higher than instant claim 4, in order to provide a final content of 10% (e.g., within the claimed range) in the fiber-reinforced composite material of working Example 1, Yoshikawa more broadly teaches that the content of the cellulose nanofibers in the fiber-reinforced composite material (e.g., before dilution) is preferably 5% by mass or more overlapping the claimed range, while in the diluted fiber-reinforced composite material, the content of cellulose nanofibers is preferably 3 to 20% by mass of 100% by mass of the fiber-reinforced composite material (Paragraphs 0035-0036), and given that Yoshikawa teaches examples wherein 1 part of the masterbatch is diluted with 3 parts of diluent polypropylene, a content as instantly claimed of 15 mass% or less would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a diluted content within the preferred 3-20% range taught by Yoshikawa. Hence, absent any clear showing of criticality or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 4 would have been obvious over the teachings of Yoshikawa.
With respect to instant claim 7, Yoshikawa does not teach that the shaped articles or “three-dimensional” shaped articles are obtained “by three-dimensional molding” of the mixed fiber-reinforced molding material, i.e., masterbatch of the cellulose nanofibers dispersed in polypropylene homopolymer mixed with the diluting polypropylene block copolymer as the claimed “powder material” of instant claim 1, “by a laser sintering 3D printer” as instantly claimed, however, given that Yoshikawa does not limit the molding method for producing the shaped articles and broadly teaches that by diluting the fiber-reinforced composite material/masterbatch, the resulting molding material can be used in molded products for a variety of applications (Paragraph 0014) such as those recited in Paragraph 0058, and given that such articles are known to be produced by 3D printing, an obvious alternative method for forming shaped polyolefin articles in the art including by utilizing a laser sintering 3D printer, an obvious 3D printing method in the art (as evidenced by, e.g., Miki, US2021/0292539A1, corresponds to EP3885141A1 on IDS dated 9/9/2026; or Herschke, US2021/0139685A1, corresponds to WO2019221733A1 on IDS dated 9/9/2026; or Okudaira, JP2021053862A, machine translation also attached; or DE202020106104U1, machine translation also attached; or Sriskandha, US2023/0100178A1; Entire documents), the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 7 would have been obvious over the teachings of Yoshikawa given that it is prima facie obviousness to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okudaira (JP2021-083862A, please refer to the attached machine translation for the below cited sections) in view of Yoshikawa (JP2019-056088A, again please refer to the attached machine translation for the below cited sections). Okudaira teaches a molding powder material for three-dimensional molding (as in instant claim 1) by a laser sintering type three-dimensional printer and a molded three-dimensional article formed by laser sintering 3D printing of the molding powder material (as in instant claim 7), wherein the molding powder material contains a resin powder and nanofibers, such as cellulose nanofiber (as in instant claim 5), in a content of 2 to 15% by weight (as in instant claim 4) such that when the nanofiber content is 2% by weight or more, the nanofibers can act as reinforcing materials to improve the mechanical properties of the three-dimensional fabricated objects, while when the content is 15% by weight or less, the combustion of nanofibers by laser irradiation can be suppress (Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0001, 0004-0007, 0012-0013, and 0027). Okudaira teaches that the above effect of nanofibers as reinforcing material is also based on the improvement of the mechanical properties of the powder material itself due to the inclusion of nanofibers (Paragraph 0013) and that due to the presence of the nanofibers, which suppress the aggregation of fine particles in powder materials when present in a content of 2% by weight or more, the powder material can be supplied to a laser sintering 3D printer in a state containing a large amount of fine powders (Paragraphs 0014 and 0016), wherein the molding powder material (1) can include a first powder (2A) having a relatively large particle size and a second powder (2B) having a relatively small particle size such that the smaller powder (2B) fills gaps between the larger powder (2A), providing a three-dimensional object obtained by laser sintering 3D printer that is a composite of powder material as shown in Fig. 3 and having improved mechanical properties (Paragraphs 0018 and 0033-0034). Okudaira teaches that the resin powder includes, for example, a thermoplastic resin, preferably a crystalline resin, and may contain at least one selected from polyamide, polyolefin, and polylactic acid, although not limited thereto (Paragraphs 0020-0022). Okudaira teaches that non-limiting examples of polyolefins are polyethylene and polypropylene (Paragraph 0024), and that the powder material may be formed, for example, by mixing resin powder and nanofibers and creating a resin molded body, e.g., a sheet, strand or flake, containing resin and nanofibers, and then crushing it (Paragraph 0032). Okudaira teaches that the three-dimensional object produced from the powder material may have a bending modulus, for example, of 0.2 GPa or more, may be 0.5 GPa or more, and even 2.5 GPa or more; and a bending strength of, for example, 5 MPa or more, may be 15 MPa or more, or even 90 MPa or more, as obtained in accordance with Method A as defined in JIS K7171:2016 (Paragraph 0034; as in instant claims 10-11); while the Charpy impact strength of the three-dimensional object is, for example, 0.5 kJ/m2 or higher, may be 1.0 kJ/m2 or higher, 5.0 kJ/m2 or higher, 7.0 kJ/m2, and even 9.0 kJ/m2 or higher, calculated in accordance with the provisions of JIS K7111-1:2012, obtained as the notched Charpy impact strength due to edgewise impact (Paragraph 0035, reading upon the claimed Charpy impact strength of instant claim 10, particularly given that a notched strength for a given sample is less than an unnotched strength). Okudaira also teaches that a three-dimensional molded object may be produced from a first resin powder forming a base structure (13) and then an additional resin or further resin (14) may be introduced into the gaps (12) between the joined powder materials (1) in the base structure (13) forming a sea-island structure as shown in Fig. 14 (Paragraph 0038, similar to instant claim ) with no specific limitation on the resins utilized.
Hence, with respect to the claimed invention, Okudaira teaches a powder material for three-dimensional shaping containing nanofibers as in instant claim 1, particularly cellulose nanofibers as in instant claim 5 in a content of 15 mass% or less as in instant claim 4, wherein the powder material may comprises a first larger resin powder material and a second smaller resin powder material to fill gaps between the larger resin powder material, as well as a method for manufacturing a three-dimensional shaped article by three-dimensional molding of the powder material by a laser sintering 3D printer, and a three-dimensional shaped article comprising first and second domains, such as in a sea-island structure, with Charpy impact strength, flexural modulus, and flexural strength properties as instantly claimed, and although Okudaira teaches that the resin for producing the powder material may be a polyolefin, particularly polypropylene, Okudaira does not teach that the powder material includes a first resin powder containing homo polypropylene and nanofiber, and second resin powder containing block polypropylene as recited in instant claim 1, particularly in a ratio as in instant claims 2-3, and/or that the shaped article has a first domain containing homo polypropylene and a second domain containing block polypropylene as recited in instant claim 8, particularly as island and sea portions, respectively, as in instant claim 9.
However, given that Okudaira does not limit the polyolefin or polypropylene to any specific polypropylene material, and that Yoshikawa as discussed in detail above, and incorporated herein by reference, teaches a fiber-reinforced composite molding material containing 5% by mass or more of cellulose nanofibers (as in instant claims 4-5) and a polyolefin, particularly a polypropylene homopolymer, that can be diluted with polypropylene homopolymer, polypropylene block copolymer, or polypropylene random copolymer to produce nanofiber-reinforced molded or shaped articles such as interior or exterior parts for transportation equipment such as automobiles as recited in Paragraph 0058, similar to the teachings of Okudaira (Paragraph 0039), having mechanical properties similar to those as taught by Okudaira, with an example specifically formed from a first material containing cellulose nanofibers dispersed in polypropylene homopolymer diluted with a second material containing polypropylene block copolymer as in instant claims 1, 6, and 8, in a ratio as in instant claims 2-3, forming a shaped article having a dispersed structure or domains as in instant claims 8-9 and properties as in instant claims 11-12, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the molding materials taught by Yoshikawa in the invention taught by Okudaira, or to combine the teachings of Yoshikawa with the teachings of Okudaira to further improve the mechanical properties of the molded article thereby arriving at the claimed invention given that it is prima facie obviousness to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and/or prima facie obviousness to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference. Hence, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, instant claims 1-11 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Okudaira in view of Yoshikawa, wherein one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to utilize any amount(s) for the cellulose nanofiber and/or polypropylene resins as taught by Okudaira and/or Yoshikawa based upon the desired end use of the shaped article.
Citation of pertinent prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yang (Characteristic impact resistance model analysis of cellulose nanofibril-filled polypropylene composites) provides an analysis of notched and unnotched Izod impact strength properties of cellulose nanofiber-filled impact modified polypropylene composites as a function of filler loading, in comparison to notched and unnotched Izod impact strength properties of microfibrillated cellulose-filled impact modified polypropylene.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays from 10:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/MONIQUE R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
