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 .
Amendments to the specification, drawings, and claims 8 and 12, the cancellation of claims 9-11, 15-16, and 23-25, in the response filed September 4, 2025, have been entered.
Claims 8, 12-14, 17-22, and 26 are currently pending in the above identified application.
Claims 14 and 17-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed towards the non-elected inventions.
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 8, 13, 21-22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2011/036080 to Gandolfo in view of CN 111308610 to Yu.
NOTE: The English translations of WO 2011036080 and CN 111308610 will be used for prior art mapping.
Regarding claims 8, 13, 21, and 26, Gandolfo teaches an adaptive composite material (filament), such as in the form of a hollow cylinder wire, or fiber, comprising a reinforcement and a matrix, at least one of which includes at least one elastomer liquid crystal, characterized in that the material has an actuator function over the entirety or a portion thereof (Gandolfo, abstract, p. 8), reading on a actuator having 3D architecture comprising a filament. Gandolfo teaches the matrix or reinforcement being a fiber and the reinforcement or the matrix being an elastomer sheath (Id., p. 4), encompassing a shell comprising a liquid crystal elastomer surrounding a core. Gandolfo teaches the elastomeric liquid crystal comprising at least one mesogen, including nematic, and teaches the actuator being configured to pass the elastomeric liquid crystal from a first anisotropic physical state to a second isotropic physical state and the anisotropic state being contracted and the isotropic state activating the fiber to contract (Id., p. 2-3, 8-9), reading on the actuator, and therefore the core, being configured to induce a nematic-to-isotropic transition liquid crystal elastomer and, when the nematic-to-isotropic transition of the liquid crystal elastomer being induced, the director loses alignment and the 3D architecture is actuated. Gandolfo teaches during the formation of the elastomeric liquid crystal and to obtain a desired orientation, the crosslinking is advantageously carried out in the anisotropic phase and the orientation of the molecules in an axial (nematic) directions (Id., p. 11-12), reading on a director of the liquid crystal elastomer being aligned with a longitudinal axis of the filament. Gandolfo teaches the change in physical state being caused by thermal or optical or electrical origin and having a mechanical, electrical or optical effects (Id., p. 8). Gandolfo teaches the reinforcement or matrix being a hollow cylinder (Id., p. 4). Gandolfo teaches an embodiment comprising an elastane fiber coated with a liquid crystal elastomer that changes color with exposure to UV and teaches the elastane may be replaced by another elastomer (polymer) (Id., p. 18-19).
Gandolfo does not teach the core being a light transmissive polymer.
However, Yu teaches a photo-responsive polymer optical fiber comprising a core and a photo-responsive group as an outer cladding layer than can sense optical signal (light) transmitted in the core and respond (Yu, abstract), reading on the core being light transmissive and being configured to generate, deliver, or transmit an activator of the nematic-to-isotropic transition, specifically configure to transmit light (claim 22). Yu teaches the fiber comprising a liquid crystal elastomer (polymer) inner core layer and a light-responsive outer cladding layer that is a liquid crystal elastomer containing a photo-responsive group (Id., abstract, p. 2-3). As the core is light transmissive and a liquid crystal elastomer, it is a light transmissive polymer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the fiber of Gandolfo, wherein the core it the light transmissive core as taught by Yu, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known elastomer core predictably suitable for use in liquid crystal elastomer fiber that are optical responsive and by the desire to form a fiber that responds to optical signals transmitted by the core.
The limitations “core configured to induce a nematic-to-isotropic transition of the liquid crystal elastomer” and “when the nematic-to-isotropic transition of the liquid crystal elastomer is induced, the director losses alignment and the 3D printed architecture is actuated” are deemed to be statements with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use 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. MPEP § 2111.02. As the liquid crystal elastomer is triggered to induce a nematic to isotropic change, the core does not interfere, and the core is capable of allowing thermal, optical or electrical transmission, the article is capable of performing the recited functions.
The limitation “3D printed architecture” is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner's position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Regarding claim 26, the prior art combination teaches an embodiment comprising a black elastane fiber coated with elastomeric liquid crystal that changes color and teaches two coating successively being provided to result in the amplitude of the reflection of light being 100% (Gandolfo, p. 19-20, 12-13), reading on the shell comprising a plurality of liquid crystal elastomer arranged in concentric layers or in a longitudinal stack and comprising more than one nematic-to-isotropic transition induced at different temperature and/or wavelengths. Gandolfo teaches the elastomeric liquid crystal comprising different mesogens (Id., p. 9-11), reading on more than one nematic-to-isotropic transition induced at different temperatures, wavelength, voltages, and/or chemical gradients.
Claim 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2011/036080 to Gandolfo in view of CN 111308610 to Yu, as applied to claims 8, 13, 21-22, and 26 above, further in view of US Pub. No. 2009/0085444 to Alvarez Icaza Rivera (“Alvarez” herewithin).
NOTE: The English translation of WO 2011036080 will be used for prior art mapping.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art combination does not teach teaches the core having a transverse cross-sectional area at least 40% as large as a total transverse cross-sectional area of the filament.
However, Alvarez teaches an electroactive polymer fiber (filament) that includes dielectric elastomer fibers comprising an inner electrode (core) and an electroactive polymer disposed exterior to the incompressible compliant inner electrode that is an electrically conductive material (shell surrounding a core) (Alvarez, abstract, title, para 0005-0006, 0129). Alvarez teaches electroactive polymers are polymers responding to stimulation with a significant change of shape or size including dielectric elastomers (shell comprising an elastomer), including particular grades of silicone (elastomer) (Id., para 0056, 0058, 0093-0095). Alvarez teaches the electroactive fiber comprising an electroactively elastically compliant material (Id., para 0061), such as the electroactive polymer comprises a dielectric elastomer or an electrostrictive graft elastomer, including silicone (Id., para 0287-0288). Alvarez teaches standard techniques being used as a post processing of the extrusion process including drawing, annealing, and orienting (Id., para 0218-0219). Alvarez teaches an embodiment having an initial outer polymer radius of approximately 0.4 mm and an inner radius of approximately 0.3 mm (Id., para 0274), reading on the area of the core having a transverse cross sectional area at least about 40% as large as a total transverse cross-sectional area of the filament, specifically about 56%. Additionally, the prior art combination teaches the internal radius of the electroactive polymer tube 204 being from about 1/100 to 99/100ths the size of the external radius and having a core 2002 (Id., para 0130). The prior art combination teaches the ideal choice of the internal radius depending greatly on the electromechanical properties of the electroactive polymer, the desired electromechanical behavior of the fiber, and the electrical properties of the electrode 2020 (Id.). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the fiber of the prior art combination, wherein the radius of the reinforcement and matrix is as taught by Alvarez, motivated by the desire of forming conventionally known fiber predictably suitable for responsive fiber. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the fiber of the prior art combination, wherein the radius, and therefore the cross section area of the core relative to the filament, is selected based on the desired properties of the fiber, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Alvarez as influenced by the selection of the radius and desired properties of the fiber.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub. No. 2014/0180134 teaches a fiber optical cable that transmit light with an outer artificial muscle that is an electro-active polymer, such as a liquid crystal elastomer.
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 JENNIFER ANN GILLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0556. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM- 4:30 PM EST M-H.
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.
/JENNIFER A GILLETT/Examiner, Art Unit 1789