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 .
The amendment filed December 16, 2025 has been entered.
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.
(a)(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 27-29, 31-37 and 39-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sidler (“Prospective design, rapid prototyping, and testing of smart dressings, drug delivery patches, and replacement body parts using microscopy aided design and manufacture (MADAME)” Front. Med., Vol. 5, Dec. 2018).
Claim 27: Sidler discloses a method of forming a mechanoactive material (abstract). The method includes assembling a plurality of fibers based on a fiber assembly pattern into a textile substrate (p. 2); depositing a material via an additive manufacturing technique onto the fibers based on an additive manufacturing pattern (pp. 6-7) to provide a composite textile that exhibits a change in structure in response to an exogenous stimulus (p. 2), wherein the composite textile includes areas of prestresses (fig. 3; pp. 2-4), and folding in the composite textile (fig. 3g; the strand is folded in the composite textile to form a weave).
Claim 28: Sidler discloses prestresses and/or residual stresses in the composite textile provide spatially and/or temporally resolved regions to sense, apply, transduce, release, and/or store at least one of forces, displacement and/or energy when triggered and/or activated (fig. 3; pp. 2-4).
Claim 29: Sidler discloses the fiber assembly pattern includes different biophysically responsive fibers in sections of the textile substrate, the different biophysically responsive fibers providing at least one prestress and/or residual stress in the composite textile (p. 2).
Claim 31: Sidler discloses the prestress or residual stress is defined by the material of the fibers (fig. 3; pp. 2-4).
Claim 32: Sidler discloses the fiber assembly pattern includes selectively prestressed warp and weft fibers to provide the prestress and/or residual stress in the textile (fig. 3; pp. 2-4).
Claim 33: Sidler discloses folding the composite textile to generate folded patterns that provide a prestress of the textile (fig. 3; pp. 2-4).
Claim 34: Sidler discloses mapping a three-dimensional spatial distribution of at least one mechanical property, material property, or structure of a natural or biological material of interest; and designing the fiber assembly pattern and/or the additive manufacturing pattern based the intrinsic pattern of at least one mechanical property, material property, or structural property of the biological material of interest.
Claim 35: Sidler discloses the fiber assembly pattern is based on fingerprint patterns or geometric patterns with intrinsic elasticity and/or spatially distinct topography (p. 2).
Claim 36: Sidler discloses the fibers include a warp and weft that are interlaced, woven, knitted, and/or knotted into the fiber assembly pattern (fig. 3; pp. 2-4).
Claim 37: Sidler discloses the assembled fibers are woven using a weaving algorithm based on the intrinsic pattern to define the weave pattern and fiber orientation (fig. 3; pp. 2-4).
Claim 39: Sidler discloses the deposited material defines a matrix that includes plurality of pores with a hierarchal porosity and/or porosity gradient in the composite textile (p. 5; fig. 4).
Claim 40: Sidler discloses the additive manufacturing pattern is based on a three-dimensional spatial distribution of pores in biological material of interest (pp. 5-6).
Claim 41: Sidler discloses providing a fluid within the pores, the movement of the fluid in the pores dissipating energy in response to force or impact of the composite textile (pp. 5-6).
Claim 42: Sidler discloses the composite textile including a plurality of first regions spaced from one another in the composite textile and separated by second regions wherein the first regions and second regions differing in at least one of a mechanical property, material property, or structural property (fig. 3; pp. 2-4).
Claim 43: Sidler discloses at least some of the first regions having a different porosity, volume, volumetric permeability, and/or surface permeability than the porosity, volume, volumetric permeability, and/or surface permeability of other first regions (figs. 3-4; pp. 2-6).
Claims 44-48: Sidler discloses the composite textile has a region of temporally or spatially-controlled elasticity that transitions between a first state and a second state in response to the external stimuli, wherein the first state is more relaxed than the second state, and the composite textile can at least partially revert from the second state to the first state over an extended time period resulting from the temporally-controlled elasticity of the textile substrate, with different internal energies, and moves from the second state to the first state via any one of elongation or shortening of the composite textile, or relaxation or stiffening of the composite textile. (figs. 2-3, 8-9; pp. 2-8).
Claim 49: Sidler discloses the textile substrate is woven using at least two threads/fibers, wherein each thread has a different elasticity (figs. 2-3; pp. 2-6)
Claims 50-51: Sidler discloses the textile substrate includes at least one thread possessing elasticity that varies along the length and cross-section of the thread (figs. 2-3; pp. 2-6).
Claim 52: Sidler discloses the substrate being woven using threads arranged in different directions such that the threads move frictionally relative to one another cause the transition from the first state to the second state to occur over an extended time period (figs. 2-3; pp. 2-7).
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 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sidler (“Prospective design, rapid prototyping, and testing of smart dressings, drug delivery patches, and replacement body parts using microscopy aided design and manufacture (MADAME)” Front. Med., Vol. 5, Dec. 2018), as applied to claim 27 above, in view of Leist (“Design of a 4D Printing System using Thermal Sensitive Smart Materials and Photoactivated Shape Changing Polymers”, PhD thesis, Drexel University, 2017).
Sidler discloses the additive manufacturing technique comprises 3D printing, but is silent as to it being a fused deposition modeling (FDM) technique. However, Leist discloses a method of forming a mechanoactive material (abstract), including assembling a plurality of fibers based on a fiber assembly pattern into a textile substrate (pp. 29-32); depositing a material via an additive manufacturing technique onto the fibers based on an additive manufacturing pattern (pp. 29-32) to provide a composite textile that exhibits a change in structure in response to an exogenous stimulus (pp. 29-32). As taught by Leist, FDM allows for common modeling materials to be used for the creation of smart textiles (p. 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have utilized FDM in the method of Sidler to allow for common modeling materials to be used for the creation of smart textiles.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Sidler does “not teach that the materials therein include prestresses and/or residual stress that is provided by the plurality of fibers assembled in the fiber assembly pattern and/or kirigami cut-outs and/or folding in the composite textile as recited in claim 27.” This argument has been considered but is not persuasive. Sidler teaches a recursive weave pattern based on a prestressed strain map of the tissue fabric of the periosteium in figure 3g. As taught by Sidler on page 2, MADAME uses these patterns to recreate these materials using recursive logic. This recursive logic provides a basis for computer coding algorithms which are used to create the textiles. Sidler explains, referring specifically to Figure 3, that “As an example, the patterns of structural proteins including elastin and collagen which imbue tissues with their respective elastic and toughness properties can be recursively mapped out and then imported into computer aided design files to weave textiles with scaled up mechanical property patterns mimicking those of the natural tissue (Figure 3).” (Emphasis in original). Thus, directly contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Sidler teaches prestresses and/or residual stress that is provided by the plurality of fibers assembled in the fiber assembly pattern. Moreover, as discussed above, Sidler discloses folding in the composite textile in fig. 3g where the strand is folded in the composite textile to form a weave.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LARRY THROWER whose telephone number is (571)270-5517. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm MT M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1487. 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.
/LARRY W THROWER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights