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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the communication filed on 10/08/2025. Currently claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-12, 14-19, 21-22, and 24-25, are pending in the application; with claims 14-19, 21-22, and 24-25 withdrawn from consideration.
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 103 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made 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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Zheng et al. (WO 2019/227082 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Zheng”, in view of Sirbuly et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0181506 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Sirbuly”, in view of Bodkhe et al. (Sanpada Bodkhe et al.: One-Step Solvent Evaporation-Assisted 3D Printing of Piezoelectric PVDF Nanocomposite Stricture, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2017, 9, pp. 20833- 20842), hereafter, referred to as “Bodkhe”.
Regarding claim 1, Zheng teaches a composition comprising a plurality of piezoelectric particles in at least a portion of a polymer matrix comprising a polymer material; by teaching a composition comprising a plurality of piezoelectric particles dispersed in a thermoplastic polymer (page 18, lines 13-25). Zheng teaches to use the composition form three-dimensional (3D) piezoelectric structure composed of a 3D periodic micro-lattice comprising a piezoelectric composite material (page 1, lines 16-21). Zheng teaches that the polymer matrix can be composed of a polymer selected from the group of: polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), poly (ethylene glycol) diacrylate, polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), hexanediol diacrylate (HDDA) a thermoset polymer, a thermoplastic polymer, and combinations thereof. The piezoelectric particle can be selected from the group of: quartz, berlinite (AIPO4), sodium potassium tartrate tetrahydrate, topaz, a tourmaline-group mineral, (PbTiO3), langasite (La3Ga5SiO14), gallium orthophosphate (GaPO4), lithium niobite (LiNbO3), lithium tantalite (LiTaO3), barium titanate (BaTiO3), lead zirconate titanate (PZT), potassium niobite (KNbO3), sodium tungstate (Na2WO3), Ba2NaNb5O5, Pb2KNb5O15, sodium potassium niobite (K,Na)NbO3), bismuth ferrite (BiFeO3), sodium niobite (NaNbO3), bismuth titanate (Bi4TbO12), sodium bismuth titanate (NaBi(TiO3)2), Zinc oxide, niobite-lead titanate (PMN-PT), and combinations thereof (page18, lines 13-35).
But Zheng fails to explicitly teach plurality of interconnected pores defined within the polymer matrix. However, Sirbuly teaches to form a porous nanoparticle-polymer composite structure, wherein the porous nanoparticle-polymer composite structure comprises of a curable liquid polymer; and piezoelectric nanoparticles. The nanoparticle-polymer composite structure comprising the curable liquid polymer, and the piezoelectric nanoparticles are shaped to form a porous structure (para. [0005]). Sirbuly also teaches in Fig. 1(d), the obvious interconnectedness of the pores in nanoparticle-polymer composite, and use of sugar grains to control the pore size distribution (para, [0024]). Sirbuly further teaches that the porous nanoparticle-polymer composite structure is implemented by, for example, the curable liquid polymer can include poly-dimethyl-siloxane (PDMS), and polyurethane. The piezoelectric nanoparticles can include BTO, PZT, ZnO, or NaNbO3 (para. [0006]). Sirbuly further teaches plurality of pores defined within the polymer matrix, by teaching that the porous structure can include a foam. Sirbuly teaches that foams are basically intact materials with large void fractions (e.g., 50-80% air), offer a unique means of creating materials with similar structuring in all dimensions. For piezoelectrics this typically involves generating ceramic materials through fused-deposition or robocasting techniques which can be refined to create well-controlled porous structures either by layer-by-layer or polymeric templating. The PZT foams have higher piezo-sensitivity, lower acoustic impedance, and high mechanical flexibility compared to their thin film counterparts, Sirbuly teaches to offer high piezoelectric coefficients while maintaining elasticity and isotropic mechanical integrity, as well as cost effective synthetic strategies (para. [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Sirbuly, and form a composition that would provide plurality of interconnected pores defined within the polymer matrix of a filtering membrane with piezoelectric characteristics, because that would provide high piezoelectric coefficients while maintaining elasticity and isotropic mechanical integrity, as well as cost effective synthetic strategies in the composite structure for the desired article (KSR Rationale C, MPEP 2143).
But, Zheng, and Sirbuly fail to explicitly teach that the polymer material and the piezoelectric particles collectively define an extrudable material. However, Bodkhe teaches a composite filament comprising: a plurality of piezoelectric particles (barium titanate nanoparticles) dispersed in a thermoplastic polymer (Polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)) (page 20834; column 2, lines 21-29), wherein the composite filament is compatible with fused filament fabrication and has a length and diameter compatible with fused filament fabrication (Fig. 1 (a)), and the piezoelectric particles are substantially non-agglomerated and dispersed along the length of the composite filament (page 20834; column 2, lines 30-34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Bodkhe, and form a composition that would be provided in the form of a filament, because that would allow to form a piezoelectric nanocomposite directly by a 3D printing process using a filament.
Regarding claims 2, and 4, Bodkhe teaches a composition, wherein 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 to form a filament comprising: a plurality of piezoelectric particles (barium titanate nanoparticles) dispersed in a thermoplastic polymer (Polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)) (page 20834; column 2, lines 21-29).
Regarding claim 5, Zheng teaches a composition, wherein the polymer material comprises a thermoplastic polymer; by teaching that the polymer matrix can be composed
of a polymer selected from the group of: polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), poly (ethylene glycol)
diacrylate, polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), hexanediol diacrylate (HDDA) a thermoset polymer, a thermoplastic polymer, and combinations thereof (claim 4)
Regarding claim 9, Zheng teaches a composition, wherein the piezoelectric particles are covalently bonded to at least a portion of the polymer material, are covalently cross-linkable with at least a portion of the polymer material, and/or interact non-covalently with at least a portion of the polymer material by π-π bonding, hydrogen bonding, electrostatic interactions stronger than van der Waals interactions, or any combination thereof; by teaching that a plurality of functionalized piezoelectric particles are crosslinked to a polymer matrix (claim 2).
Regarding claim 10, Zheng teaches a composition, wherein the pores are devoid of piezoelectric particles; by teaching that the piezoelectric particles are dispersed in a thermoplastic polymer (page 18, lines 13-25) in the polymer matrix. It would also have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the pores are void spaces only.
Regarding claim 11, Zheng teaches a composition, wherein the piezoelectric particles are substantially non-agglomerated within the polymer matrix; by teaching to use ultrasonic dispersion that would lead to non-agglomeration (page 31, lines 10-19). Additionally, Bodkhe teaches piezoelectric particles are substantially non-agglomerated and dispersed (page 20834; column 2, lines 30-34).
Regarding claim 12, Zheng teaches a composition, wherein the piezoelectric particles have an average particle size of about 10 microns or less; by teaching that the size of the PZT particles was measured to be 220.9 nm (page 41, lines 11-14).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of references (of record) does not teach or fairly suggest the subject matter of the amended independent claim 7, especially with the combination of the following limitation:
“wherein at least a portion of the interconnected pores is loaded with a backfilling material, the backfilling material being electrically conductive and differing from the polymer material and the piezoelectric particles within the polymer matrix”.
Responses to Arguments
Applicant’s argument filed on 10/08/2025 for the 103 rejections has been fully considered, Applicant’s amendment and arguments, see page 9-11, with respect to the rejection of amended independent claim 7, under 103 have been fully considered, and is persuasive, and therefore, have been indicated as allowed. However, Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 1 has been considered, but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Because the rejection is being maintained on the independent claim 1, and since there is no substantive arguments on the rejections against the references applied against rest of the dependent claims, these rejections are being maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M AMEEN whose telephone number is (469) 295 9214. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9.00 am to 6.00 pm (Eastern Time).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on (571) 272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD M AMEEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742