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 action is in response to the amendments field 03/04/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 15-16, 19-23, 27, 29-30 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 15 are being examined. Claims 2, 4, 10, 12-14, 17-18, 24-26, 28, 31 are canceled. Claims 16, 19-23, 27, 29-30 are withdrawn from further consideration. Claim 1 is amended with no new subject matter being introduced.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (WO 2019/227082 A1).
Considering claim 1, Virginia Polytechnic teaches a three-dimensional piezoelectric structure comprising a piezoelectric composite material comprising a plurality of functionalized piezoelectric particles crosslinked to a polymer matrix, wherein the polymer matrix comprises a polymer selected from a group which includes a thermoplastic polymer (claims 1-2, 4). Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (see MPEP §2144.07). In the instant case, Virginia Polytechnic teaches that a thermoplastic polymer is a suitable polymer for the polymer matrix comprising the functionalized piezoelectric particles.
Virginia Polytechnic teaches the functionalized piezoelectric particles are crosslinked to the polymer matrix via the functionalization moiety including an acrylate containing group such as trimethoxysilylpropyl methacrylate (i.e., a photocurable functional group) (claims 8-9). It should be noted that paragraphs [0042]-[0043] of instant specification disclose that various methacrylated compounds such as methacrylated silicones are suitable photocurable polymer precursors.
Virginia Polytechnic teaches the polymer material and the piezoelectric particles collectively define an extrudable material that is a composite having a form factor selected from the group consisting of a composite filament, a composite pellet, a composite powder, and a composite paste by teaching fused filament fabrication is used as the method of making the piezoelectric structures (Virginia Polytechnic, page 21 lines 4-20).
Considering claim 3, Virginia Polytechnic teaches the piezoelectric particles are uniformly dispersed in at least a portion of the polymer material (Virginia Polytechnic, page 41 lines 28-30).
Considering claim 5, Virginia Polytechnic teaches the polymer material and the piezoelectric particles collectively define an extrudable material that is a composite filament by teaching fused filament fabrication is used as the method of making the piezoelectric structures (Virginia Polytechnic, page 21 lines 4-20).
Considering claim 6, Virginia Polytechnic teaches the piezoelectric particles are photocurable (Virginia Polytechnic, claims 8 and 20).
Considering claim 7, Virginia Polytechnic teaches the piezoelectric particles, the at least one thermoplastic polymer, or any combination thereof comprises a photocurable functional group (Virginia Polytechnic, claims 8 and 20).
Considering claim 8, Virginia Polytechnic teaches wherein the piezoelectric particles are substantially non-agglomerated when combined with the polymer material by teaching that a bonding of the nanoparticle surface acrylates and the polymer matrix acrylates maintains the uniform dispersion within the printed parts (Virginia Polytechnic, page 41 lines 28-30).
Considering claim 9, Virginia Polytechnic teaches the piezoelectric particles have an average particle size of about 10 microns or less by teaching average particle diameter of 220.9 nm (Virginia Polytechnic, page 41 lines 11-15).
Considering claim 11, Virginia Polytechnic teaches the functionalized piezoelectric particles can be randomly or non-uniformly distributed throughout the polymer matrix and the functionalization moiety can be any moiety or group that can form covalent linkages between nanoparticles and a polymer matrix (Virginia Polytechnic, page16 lines 30-32 and page 18 lines 36-37). Thus, it would be expected that at least one photocurable polymer precursor is immiscible with the at least one thermoplastic polymer, or the at least one photocurable polymer precursor is polymerizable to a covalently crosslinked polymer that is immiscible with the at least one thermoplastic polymer.
Considering claim 15, Virginia Polytechnic teaches exposing the functionalized piezoelectric particles to light to polymerize the photosensitive monomeric polymer resin and the functionalization moiety of the piezoelectric particle (Virginia Polytechnic, claim 20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a photoinitiator in the composition. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to enable polymerization of the photosensitive monomeric polymer resin and the functionalization moiety of the piezoelectric particle when exposed to light with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed regarding Zheng teaches separate deposition of piezoelectric particles and photosensitive polymer resin upon a substrate have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Zheng teaches various methods of making the piezoelectric structures which include a light-based additive manufacturing process and a fused filament fabrication (FFF) technique; the light-based additive manufacturing process the 3D object is built up on a build platform layer by layer and FFF based techniques rely 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 (Zheng, page 21). Applicant’s argument regarding separate deposition of piezoelectric particles and photosensitive polymer resin upon a substrate is based on the light-based additive manufacturing process. The FFF technique described by Zheng would result in the polymer material and piezoelectric particles collectively defining an extrudable material that is a composite filament.
Conclusion
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 ANITA NASSIRI-MOTLAGH whose telephone number is (571)270-7588. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:00.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/ANITA NASSIRI-MOTLAGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights