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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 15, 2025 has been entered.
Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-10, 12-13, 17 and 19-20 are currently pending and under examination.
All previous rejections are withdrawn, as applicants have amended to limit the piezoelectric particles in an amount of 40-70 vol%, which was not previously required.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is proposed below.
The texts of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code are not included in this section and can be found in a prior Office action.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17 and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2 and 4-10 of copending Application No. 17/995658 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
App. No. ‘658 claims a composition comprising piezoelectric particles substantially localized in at one of a first and second polymer material of a polymer matrix, where the matrix comprising a first and second polymer which are immiscible (claim 1), where the composition collectively defines an extrudable material that is a composite having a form factor of a composite filament (claim 2), where the polymers are thermoplastic (claim 3), the piezoelectric particles are covalently bonded to at least a portion of the polymer matrix (claim 7), the particles are substantially non-agglomerated (claim 9) and have a particle size of 10 microns or less (claim 10).
While App. No. ‘658 does not claim the amount of piezoelectric particles present in the composition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include these particles in a minimum amount such that a piezoelectric effect is obtained and in a maximum amount such that the integrity of the composition is maintained, which could be determined without undue experimentation.
The above limitations read on instant claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17 and 19.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 17 and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9-12 of copending Application No. 17/995917 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
App. No. ‘917 claims a composition comprising piezoelectric particles in a portion of a polymer matrix (claim 1), which collectively defines an extrudable material that is a composite in a form factor of a composite filament (claims 2 and 4), where the polymer is a thermoplastic polymer (claim 5), the piezoelectric particles are covalently bonded to the polymer material (claim 9), are substantially non-agglomerated within the polymer matrix (claim 11) and have an average particle size of 10 micron or less (claim 12).
While App. No. ‘917 does not claim the amount of piezoelectric particles present in the composition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include these particles in a minimum amount such that a piezoelectric effect is obtained and in a maximum amount such that the integrity of the composition is maintained, which could be determined without undue experimentation.
The above limitations read on instant claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 17 and 19.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3, 8-10, 12, 17 and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4-10 and 12-14 of copending Application No. 17/995921 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
App. No. ‘921 claims a composition comprising piezoelectric particles dispersed in a polymer material (claim 1), which is extrudable and has a form factor of a composite filament (claim 2), where the piezoelectric particles are uniformly dispersed in at least a portion of the polymer (claim 4), where the composition collectively defines an extrudable material that is a composite in a form factor of a composite filament (claim 5), the polymer material is a thermoplastic polymer (claim 6), further comprising a curable polymer (claims 7 and 8), where the piezoelectric particles are substantially non-agglomerated (claim 9), have an average particle size of 10 micron or less (claim 10), and are covalently bonded with the polymer material (claim 12). App. No. ‘921 claims the polymer comprising a first and second thermoplastic polymer which are immiscible (claim 14).
While App. No. ‘921 does not claim the amount of piezoelectric particles present in the composition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include these particles in a minimum amount such that a piezoelectric effect is obtained and in a maximum amount such that the integrity of the composition is maintained, which could be determined without undue experimentation.
The above limitations read on instant claims 1, 3, 8-10, 12, 17 and 19.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 12, 17 and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 12, 13 and 15-17 of copending Application No. 18/052069 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
App. No. ‘069 claims a composition comprising a polymer material comprising at least one thermoplastic polymer, at least one polymer precursor or a combination thereof, a plurality of piezoelectric particles dispersed in at least a portion of the polymer material, where the piezoelectric particles are covalently bonded to at least a portion of the polymer material, where the composition is extrudable (claims 1-2), where the composition collectively defines a composite having a form factor of a composite filament (claims 12 and 15), the particles are uniformly dispersed (claim 13) and non-agglomerated (claim 16) and have an average particle size of 10 micron or less (claim 17). App. No. ‘069 claims the polymer material as a comprising a first and second thermoplastic polymer that are immiscible (claims 19-20).
While App. No. ‘069 does not claim the amount of piezoelectric particles present in the composition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include these particles in a minimum amount such that a piezoelectric effect is obtained and in a maximum amount such that the integrity of the composition is maintained, which could be determined without undue experimentation.
The above limitations read on instant claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 12, 17 and 19.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 11, 12, 17 and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10 of copending Application No. 18/052123 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
App. No. ‘123 claims a composition comprising piezoelectric particles in a polymer matrix comprising a first and second thermoplastic polymer that are immiscible with each other (claims 1 and 5), where the composition collectively defines an extrudable material that is a composite having a form factor of a composite filament (claims 2 and 4), where the piezoelectric particles are covalently bonded to a portion of the polymer matrix (claim 7), are substantially non-agglomerated in the polymer matrix (claim 9) and have a particle size of 10 micron or less (claim 10).
While App. No. ‘123 does not claim the amount of piezoelectric particles present in the composition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include these particles in a minimum amount such that a piezoelectric effect is obtained and in a maximum amount such that the integrity of the composition is maintained, which could be determined without undue experimentation.
The above limitations read on instant claims 1, 3, 9, 11, 12, 17 and 19.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2019/227082.
WO ‘082 discloses a piezoelectric composite material comprising a plurality of functionalized piezoelectric particles crosslinked to a polymer matrix, where the functionalized particles are uniformly distributed throughout the polymer matrix (p. 16, ll. 27-37). WO ‘082 discloses that the polymer matrix can be any polymer that can crosslink with a functional moiety on the functionalized piezoelectric particles, and includes thermoplastic polymers (p. 18, ll. 13-21). WO ‘082 discloses that the functionalization moiety can be a moiety capable of forming hydroxyl groups on the nanoparticle surfaces to form covalent linkage with the polymer matrix, and can be selected from trimethoxysilylpropyl methacrylate and trimethyoxysilylpropyl acrylate (p. 18, l. 36 to p. 19, l. 5). WO ‘082 discloses that the functionalized piezoelectric particles contained in the polymer matrix can be about 50 vol% (p. 18, ll. 11-12).
WO ‘082 discloses the composite as suitable for use in FFF (fused filament fabrication), which generally relies on extruding feedstock filaments, heating to facilitate deposition of the material into layers, depositing the melted filaments into layers to form the 3D object and allowing to cool and harden (p. 21, ll. 17-21). This meets applicants’ limitation “wherein the polymer material and piezoelectric particles collectively define an extrudable material that is a composite filament”.
WO ‘082 anticipates instant claims 1, 3, 17 and 19.
As to claim 9, uniformly distributed particles suggests a lack of agglomeration.
As to claim 10, WO ‘082 exemplifies PZT particles with a size of 221 nm (p. 41, ll. 11-15).
As to claim 20, the trimethoxysilylpropyl methacrylate and trimethyoxysilylpropyl acrylate meet applicants’ bridging agent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/227082, as applied above to claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 17 and 19-20.
WO ‘082 anticipates instant claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 17 and 19-20, as described above and applied herein as such, as WO ‘082 discloses a piezoelectric composite material comprising a plurality of functionalized piezoelectric particles crosslinked to a polymer matrix, where the functionalized particles are uniformly distributed throughout the polymer matrix.
WO ‘082 discloses that the polymer matrix can include a polymer selected from poly(ethylene glycol)diacrylate, hexanediol diacrylate, a thermoplastic polymer, and combinations thereof.
Choosing a blend of curable poly(ethylene glycol)diacrylate or hexanediol diacrylate and a thermoplastic polymer as the polymer matrix is prima facie obvious over instant claim 8.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-10, 12-13, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1886802 and US 6,599,631.
EP ‘802 teaches incorporating polymer-inorganic particle blends into structures involving interfaces with additional materials (Abstract). EP ‘802 teaches the inorganic particles can be piezoelectric materials (p. 20, [0129] and [0131]), specifically teaching the inorganic particles to include barium titanate (p. 13, [0082]). EP ‘802 teaches that the polymer-inorganic particle blends can be extruded and formed into fibers (p. 24, [0158] and p. 25, [0161]), which meets applicants’ composite filament in an elongate form. EP ‘802 teaches that to form structures from the polymer-inorganic blends, generally, the blends are processed along with one or more additional materials to form appropriate interfaces within the structures based on desired function, where depending on the desired structure, the polymer-inorganic particle blends may be localized within domains within the structure (p. 25, [0161]).
EP ‘802 points to App. No. 09/818,141 for polymer-inorganic composites, which is the same as US 6,599,631, and is incorporated by reference.
US ‘631 exemplifies preparing a composite by surface treating titanium dioxide particles with APTES (aminopropyl triethoxysilane), which is added to poly(acrylic acid), where the primary amine group of the APTES reacts with the carboxyl group of the polyacrylic acid. This composite is then blended with polyethylene glycol, where the composite with the silylation functionalization segregated into domains (col. 34, Example 5). The formation of segregated domains suggests the polymers are not miscible. Both polyacrylic acid and polyethylene glycol are thermoplastics.
Substituting the titanium dioxide particles in US ‘631 with piezoelectric particles is prima facie obvious.
EP ‘802 and US ‘631 teach particle loadings in an amount of up to 50 wt% or greater and up to 80 wt% or even 90 wt% (p. [0041]), where 80 wt% is the same as about 40 vol% barium titanate and 90 wt% is the same as about 60 vol%; therefore, it can be seen that the amount of inorganic particle suggested by EP ‘802 overlaps with the claimed range of 40-70 vol%, and it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
EP ‘802 is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1 and 12-13, 17, 19.
As to claim 3, EP ‘802 teaches the particles as being uniformly distributed through the polymer-inorganic particle blend (p. 14, [0092]).
As to claim 6, EP ‘802 teaches that the polymers and inorganic particles are chemically bonded to stabilize the resulting composite (p. 4, [0022], [0025] and p. 5, [0026]), where the reactive groups of the polymer include carboxylic acid groups.
As to claim 9, EP ‘802 teaches high particle loadings in a composite without agglomeration of the particles (p. 7, [0043]).
As to claim 10, EP ‘802 teaches the inorganic particles as having an average diameter of 500 nm or less (p. 5, [0027]).
As to claim 20, the silane used for surface treatment of the particles meets applicants’ bridging agent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 15, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Zheng (WO ‘082) teaches separate deposition of particles and polymer upon a substrate, rather than a composite filament.
While the examiner agrees that WO ‘082 teaches a method of separate deposition of particles and polymer upon a substrate, WO ‘082 discloses in an alternative embodiment the following (pp. 26 and 41):
PNG
media_image1.png
138
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
406
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The rejection over Satoh is withdrawn, as Satoh teaches a much smaller amount of filler than claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIEANN R JOHNSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM 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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/Brieann R Johnston/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766