DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 6, 2026 has been entered.
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments filed on May 19, 2026 have been entered into the filed. Currently claim 1 is amended and claims 3-4, 10-11, 15, and 28-68 are cancelled, resulting in claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-14, and 16-27 pending for examination.
It is noted that “recreates” in the amended claim 1 is being treated by the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition “to create again”, and therefore is interpreted as requiring the textile substrate and the matrix to be an identical copy of the three-dimensional spatial distribution of the at least one structural molecule and the pores of the biological material of interest.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-14, and 16-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 1, the specification does not provide support for the textile substrate and the matrix recreating the three-dimensional spatial distribution of the at least one structural molecule and the pores, respectively, of the biological material of interest as recited in lines 20-22 and 24-28. Support for the amendment is alleged to be in paragraphs [0117] and [0129] of the specification. Paragraph [0117] of the instant specification describes the use of MADAME to map spatial and temporal properties intrinsic to nature’s smart materials. Paragraph [0117] further describes that the patterns intrinsic to such materials are then recreated using recursive logic. This recursive logic provides a basis for computer coding algorithms and computer-controlled Jacquard looms to enable creation of physical embodiments. Therefore the “recreation” referred to in paragraph [0117] is recreating the structure of the natural material in the computer after mapping, and does not refer to the structure of the physical embodiment as used in the claim.
Paragraph [00129] of the instant specification discusses emulating nature systems. As discussed in previous office actions, “emulating” does not necessarily require the resulting structure of the textile physical embodiment to be identical to the biological material of interest as long as it imitates or mimics the biological material, particularly in mechanical property, material property, and/or structural property. However, as asserted above, “recreates” is interpreted as requiring the structure of the resulting textile be identical to that of the biological material. Therefore a disclosure of the textile emulating the biological material is not sufficient to provide support for the textile material recreating the biological material. Therefore the specification as filed does not provide support for the textile substrate and the matrix recreating the three-dimensional spatial distribution of the at least one structural molecule and the pores, respectively, of the biological material of interest.
Claims 2, 5-9, 12-14, and 16-27 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) based on their dependency from claim 1, rejected above.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-14, and 16-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a smart material comprising: a composite textile that includes a textile substrate formed from a plurality of fibers assembled in a fiber assembly pattern and a material deposited via an additive manufacturing technique onto and/or between the fibers of the textile substrate based on an additive manufacturing patter, wherein the textile includes a gradient in at least one of mechanical property, material property, or structural property and/or exhibits a change in at least one mechanical property, material property, or structure in response to at least one external stimulus; wherein the fiber assembly pattern and additive manufacturing pattern are based on a mapped intrinsic pattern of at least one mechanical property, material property, or structural property of a biological material of interest, the intrinsic pattern being a three dimensional spatial distribution of the at least one mechanical property, material property, of structural property of the biological material of interest emulates the mapped intrinsic pattern of the three dimensional spatial distribution of the at least one mechanical property, material property, or structural property of the biological material of interest, does not reasonably provide enablement for wherein the fibers are assembled based on the fiber assembly pattern to form the textile substrate that recreates a three-dimensional spatial distribution of the at least one structural molecule of the biological material; and wherein the deposited material defines a matrix that includes a plurality of pores with a porosity pattern in the composite textile that recreates a three-dimensional spatial distribution of pores in the biological material of interest. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Claim 1 is directed to a smart material comprising a composite textile that includes a textile substrate formed from a plurality of fibers assembled in a fiber assembly pattern and a material deposited via an additive manufacturing technique. The composite textile includes a gradient in at least one of mechanical property, material property, or structural property and/or exhibits a change in at least one mechanical property, material property, or structure in response to at least one external stimulus. The fiber assembly pattern and the additive manufacturing pattern recreate a three-dimensional spatial distribution of at least one structural molecule and pores of a biological material of interest. Claim 1 largely provides product by process limitations and functional limitations and does not describe the actual structure of the fiber pattern and additive manufacturing pattern (Wands Factors (A) and (B)).
As discussed previously in the prior art rejections, the mimicking/emulating of biological materials with fiber structure is known in the art (see e.g., Guilak paragraphs [0085]-[0086], [0095]-[0098], [0117], [0122] for descriptions of a fiber scaffold mimicking the behavior and mechanical properties of a target tissue and Tate paragraphs [0012], [0027]-[0036], [0042] for pore hierarchies similar to native biological materials). The prior art methods do not use the same imaging process as discloses by the instant disclosure and therefore do not contemplate how an algorithm based on imagining of a biological material can be translated into physical weaving and 3D printing patterns such that the resulting composite material recreates the biological material of interest (Wands Factors (C) and (D)).
Based on paragraph [0117] of the instant specification it appears that the biological material can be recreated onto the computer through the described imaging method, however how the algorithm actually translates to weaving and 3D printing patterns that provide a physical textile composite material that recreates the biological material is not described. The weaving pattern resulting from the imaging algorithm is not disclosed, the 3D printing pattern resulting from the imaging algorithm is not disclosed, the resulting textile fiber structure is not disclosed, the resulting porosity structure for 3D printed matrix is not disclosed, and whether the resulting physical structure recreates the biological structure is not compared. The instant specification frequently refers to the final structure being based on and emulating the biological material (see e.g., instant specification paragraphs [0004], [0006]-[0011], [0026], [0027], [0033], [0054], [00116], [00118], [00124], [00129] not recreating as is claimed (Wands Factor (F)).
The instant specification provides examples starting at paragraph [00116] of the instant specification. The Examples are detailed concerning the imaging process, however does not describe the actual production of the composite material (Wands Factor (G)).
The quantity of experimentation that would be required to make the invention is unclear. The instant disclosure describes in detail the imaging process, but does not go into detail about how the algorithm that results from the imaging process is translated into weaving and 3D printing patterns that recreate the biological material. The disclosure also does not go into detail as to how these patterns are physically recreated, particularly with the issues of complex fibrous systems and scale which are present in biological materials. As discussed above, the prior art does not utilize an imaging system as the instant disclosure does. Therefore, the predictability of the art and the quantity of experimentation that would be needed to create the physical product cannot be determined (Wands Factors (E) and (H)).
In sum, the instant disclosure goes into detail concerning the imaging process, but does not describe in adequate detail how the algorithm resulting from the imaging process physically translates into a composite material that recreates a three-dimensional spatial distribution of at least one structural molecule and the pores of a biological material of interest as claimed in claim 1.
Claims 2, 5-9, 12-14, and 16-27 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) based on their dependency from claim 1, rejected above.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §112
Applicant’s arguments submitted on May 19, 2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues for both 112 rejections that the specification adequately describes how to make the smart material of the present invention and provides adequate direction and guidance such that the claim is both supported and enabled.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As described above and previously, paragraph [0117] of the instant specification describes the use of MADAME to map spatial and temporal properties intrinsic to nature’s smart materials which are then recreated using recursive logic. The recursive logic provides a basis for computer coding algorithms and computer-coded Jacquard looms to enable creation of physical embodiments. Paragraph [0025] of the instant specification also describes the computer-aided design software as optimizing the desired design specifications.
The algorithms appear to only rely on the mapping data as a basis, and the specification discusses optimization of the data provided, which implies the data is changed prior to implementation into a fabric. The specification does not describe how the recursive logic step and algorithm step changes the initial mapping data during optimization. As the recursive logic is the basis for the algorithm and the specification does not describe the specific patterns resulting from this algorithm or the structure of the final product, it cannot be concluded that the textile recreates (i.e., is identical to) the mapped three-dimensional spatial distributions as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm EST.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights