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 .
This Non-Final Rejection is in response to the Applicant’s amendment received on 03/17/2026, in response to the Final Action which was mailed on 9/18/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 229-244, 246-247, and 260-267 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tibbits et al. (US 2015/0158244 A1; herein after “Tibbits”) in view of Wawrousek et al. (US 9,788,600 B2).
For claims 229-244 and 260-267, Tibbits teach 3D printing technology which can create a printed 3D object that transforms over time from a first ([0006]-[0010]), printed shape to a second, predetermined shape (it is noted that Tibbits also pertains to forming expandable product similar to applicant’s claim invention). Tibbits states that the combination of 3D printing technology plus the additional dimension of transformation over time of the printed object is referred to herein as 4D printing technology. This 4D printing technology in some cases provides a number of benefits over 3D printing technology. In particular, some physical objects made through a 3D printing process that might otherwise have necessitated assembly or other post-processing of printed parts can be rapidly manufactured and assembled without requiring post-printing assembly, thereby reducing the time and costs associated with assembly. Objects can be printed in a first shape and transformed to a second, predetermined shape at a later time. For example, the objects can be printed and transported in a first shape that is flat, and then expanded to a second shape at a later time, such as upon arrival at a customer's location. This can permit more efficient shipping because the first (i.e., shipping) shape is more flat and requires a smaller shipping volume. Printing flat objects also requires significantly less printing time, thereby also reducing the overall fabrication costs (see [0006]; Figs 13A- 13C; 18A-18B).
Tibbits does not limit the final shape to be only expanded in a single direction but offers a solution to expand to a predetermined shape ([0006]), thus allowing expansion in desired direction as claimed.
For example, Wawrousek et al. teach 3D printing a variety of object including footwear such as shoes, outsole, midsole, and/or insole, including entire footwear, including sporting equipment’s which could comprise having flat shape and requiring expansion in all direction (see col 10 lines 20-67, col 40 lines 10 to col. 41 lines 35). Wawrousek et al further teach wherein the component is a configured to be part of an article wearable by user (see col 40 lines 30 to col 41 lines 45) ; the article is a protective article configured to protect the user (see col 40 lines 40 to col 41 lines 45); the protective article comprises a pad (“sole” “insole” see col 2 lines 10 -20 and entirety) ; and the pad comprises the component (see col 2 lines 10 and onward); wherein the protective article is a helmet configured to protect of a head of user (col 40 lines 30 to col 41 lines 45); the helmet comprises an outer shell and a liner disposed within the outer shell (“protective helmet” appears to be a helmet with necessary liners known in the art); and the liner comprises the pad comprising the component; wherein the component is a pad (“padding” see col 30 lines 15-20); wherein the component is a cushion (col 30 lines 15-30); a device comprising the component made by the method of claim 229 (see col 10 lines 20-67, col 40 lines 10 to col. 41 lines 35). It would have been obvious to use flat shape as taught by Tibbits with producing structure that requires expansion in all direction such as a pad, sole, insole, exemplified by Wawrousek, for the benefit of selling desired article in the market.
Claims 230-244 and 246, see above rejection, and furthermore, claim limitation pertaining to first location being manufacturing site and second location is a place business different from manufacturing site, wherein the place of business is a store; wherein the forming is performed by a first entity and the expansion is performed by a second entity different from the first entity; wherein the first entity is a manufacturer and the second entity is a seller; wherein the seller is a retailer; wherein the first entity is a manufacturer and the second entity is a user; and providing instruction for expansion including expansion temperature+ time, or heating direction, would have been obvious over the combination provided above as both pertains to expandable product (that is expanded via either one of temperature, time, heat, moisture, etc) that is transported to a location other than manufacturing would have been obvious in view of Tibbits (Tibbits, [0006]). Wawrousek further discloses using 3D printing to form the initial object including stereo-lithography as claimed (see col 3 lines 1-15); wherein the forming comprises molding the expandable material in a mold (see col 36 lines 40-55); wherein the molding comprises injection molding (see col 36 lines 40-55).
Claim(s) 248-259 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tibbits et al. (US 2015/0158244 A1) in view of Wawrousek et al. (US 9,788,600 B2) and in further view of Erb (US 2005/0027025).
Regarding claims 248-255, Tibbits and Wawrousek et al teach using thermo-expandable material with other additional polymers (see col 38 line 5 to col 39 lines 25), but is silent to wherein the expandable material comprises expansion agent mixed with the polymeric substances…as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, Erb et al. teach expansion agent mixed with the polymeric substances, the expansion agent including microspheres ([0024],[0040], [0013]-[0050]-[0058]), wherein the polymeric substances is elastomeric ([0042]-[0045]), expansion ratio is at least three or five ([0051]), and plurality regions that differ in stiffness are made of expandable material (see [0007] discusses adjustment of blowing agent in the cell size and density). It is noted that though Erb et al teach having 0-12% (expansion agent) ([0105]), however, there is sufficient motivation to have the expansion agent optimized ([0111]), based on the final structure needed.
It would have been obvious to modify the composition taught by Tibbits and Wawrousek et al with including specific expansion agent/composition, as taught by Erb, for the benefit of producing desired structure with specific strength, compressibility, and expansion ratio (see [0003]-[0010]).
Regarding claims 256-259, Tibbits, Wawrousek et al, and Erb et al., provide suggestion for having variety of manufactured expandable article as discussed above (see all Figs of Wawrousek et al and Erb et al; see col 40 lines 20 to col 41 lines 50, col 10 lines 10 and onward of Wawrousek), thus it would have a first one of the regions of the component is configured to be disposed closer to a user during use of the component than a second one of the regions of the component; and the second one of the regions of the component is stiffer than the first one of the regions of the component; wherein the component comprises a plurality of portions that are at least one of curved and angular and are present in the initial three-dimensional configuration and in the expanded three-dimensional configuration; wherein the component comprises a predetermined arrangement of shaped elements that are made of the expandable material, intersect one another, and are present in the initial three-dimensional configuration and in the expanded three-dimensional configuration; wherein the shaped elements are relief elements of a texture of the component suggestion (see Erb [0007], and Figures of Wawrousek et al, col 10 lines 20-67, col 40 lines 10 to col. 41 lines 35 ).
Claim(s) 245 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tibbits et al. (US 2015/0158244 A1; herein after “Tibbits”) in view of Wawrousek et al. (US 9,788,600 B2) in further view of Wang et al. (US 2012/0193841 A1; herein after “Wang”).
Regarding claim 245, Tibbits and Wawrousek et al. teach all the limitations to the claim invention as discussed above, however, fail to teach 3D printing a mold, and then expanding the material inside the mold.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to shaping material, Wang teaches 3D printing a mold, and then injection molding slurry into the mold to form a component (see [0037]; [0045], [0067]; claim 1 states A system for fabricating a three dimensional part, the system comprising: a rapid prototyping machine configured to fabricate a disposable mold, the disposable mold having internal walls, the internal walls forming a negative imprint of a complex three dimensional part; and a mixer configured form a slurry from a powder and a liquid binder; an injection machine configured to introduce the slurry into the disposable mold; and a furnace system configured to cure the slurry in the disposable mold into a cured structure, burn off the disposable mold, burn off the binder, and sinter the part).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention was made to further modify above with 3D print a mold, and then print slurry into the mold, as suggested by Wang, for the benefit of forming complex part with reduced cost (see [0002]-[0007]).
Response to Arguments
The Applicant amended the claims 229-267, and after further consideration claims are rejected under new grounds. Applicant’s independent claims are still broad as such it does not yet disclose specific materials and article formed. Claim is broadly claiming forming an initial structure that can be expander later, which is already known in the art as shown above. The purpose of forming a preform, and expanding later is also a known concept used to form foaming materials. Therefore, applicant is urged to specify at least the independent claims possibly incorporating specific 3D printing, materials, and article manufactured.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 5,775, 402; US 2003/0062145 A1; US 6,103,152.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -5:00 PM).
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743