DETAILED ACTION
This office action follows a reply filed on June 29, 2026. Claims 1 and 9 have been amended. Claims 1, 5, 7-9, 12 and 25-26 are currently pending and under examination.
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, 5-10 and 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of US Patent No. 12,605,885. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
US ‘885 claims a composition comprising piezoelectric particles 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 and the polymer materials are co-continuously distributed (claim 1), 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 polymers are thermoplastic (claim 3), the piezoelectric particles are covalently bonded to at least a portion of the polymer matrix (claim 7), the volume ratio of first and second polymers is 25:75 to 75:25 (claim 8), the particles are substantially non-agglomerated (claim 9) and have a particle size of 10 microns or less (claim 10). App. No. ‘658 also claim the further inclusion of a carbon nanomaterial (claim 12). These limitations meet instant claims 1, 2, 4-10 and 12.
US ‘885 does not claim the specific type of piezoelectric particles; however, these are well-known in the art and include barium titanate and PZT (lead barium titanate) particles.
While US ‘885 does not claim the filament in an elongate form, a filament is known in the art as a single thread or think flexible threadlike object, where elongate is defined as an object that is long and thin. Therefore, the filament of US ‘885 inherently meets applicants’ elongate form.
Claims 1, 5, 7 and 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 6, 8-10, 12-13, 17 and 19-20 of copending Application No. 17/995,557 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
App. No. ‘557 claims a composite filament comprising piezoelectric particles in a polymer matrix comprising at least one thermoplastic polymer, where the piezoelectric particles are covalently bonded to a portion of the polymer matrix (claims 1 and 17), where the first and second polymers are immiscible with each other (claim 12), where the piezoelectric particles are substantially non-agglomerated in the polymer matrix (claim 9), and have a particle size of 10 micron or less (claim 10), and wherein the piezoelectric particles are substantially localized in and covalently bonded to one of the first or second thermoplastic polymers (claim 13).
While App. No. ‘557 does not claim the first and second materials as being distributed co-continuously, as claimed by the instant invention; however, a mixture of immiscible polymers are either distributed co-continuously or non co-continuously. Choosing one or the other is prima facie obvious.
App. No. ‘557 does not claim the specific type of piezoelectric particles; however, these are well-known in the art and include barium titanate and PZT (lead barium titanate) particles.
The limitations claimed by App. No. ‘557 are prima facie obvious over instant claims 1, 5-7 and 9.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 5-8, 10, 12 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hekal (US 2002/0132869) in view of WO 2022/010622, as evidenced by Wollner (US 5,910,529).
Hekal teaches a composition having co-continuous interconnecting channel morphology, where the co-continuous interconnecting channels are occupied with a polymer and particles that control the percolation through the composition (Abstract). Hekal teaches the composition as being formed from a combination of (a) component A selected from an amorphous/semicrystalline polymers, (b) a component B which is a polymer; and (c) components A and B are immiscible within each other; (d) C is a particle; (f) the preferential affinity between components B and C is greater than between components A and C; (g) at least two phases are formed, one phase is composed of a majority of component A and the second phase is composed of a majority of components B and C; and (h) two phases form the co-continuous interconnecting channel morphology (p. 2, [0026]). (f) described above suggests that the particles are localized in component B.
Hekal teaches component B as a hydrophilic agent, which includes polyethylene glycol of polyvinyl alcohol (p. 3, [0038]); teaches component C to include barium titanate (p. 4, [0041]), a known piezoelectric material; and component A as a thermoplastic material such as polyethylene (p. 4, [0046]). Hekal exemplifies the particles in an amount of 20 wt% (col. 11, Example 2).
Hekal teaches mixing the components and extruding; however, does not teach or suggest the formation of a composite filament in an elongate form, as claimed.
WO ‘622 teaches preparing 3D objects from blends of polyethylene and a polar polymer, teaching that using additive manufacturing process such as fused filament fabrication (FFF) to make 3D objects from blends of polyethylene and a polar polymer can have reduced shrinkage, reduced warpage and are capable of forming a uniform diameter printing filament (p. 6, [0032]). WO ‘622 teaches the polar polymer is that which possesses a dipole moment of greater than 0 D (p. 6, [0031]). Polyethylene glycol is known in the art as a highly polar material. WO ‘622 teaches the polyethylene to include low and high density polyethylenes (p. 12, [0051]). WO ‘622 also teaches the possible inclusion of up to 50 wt% fillers (p. 16, [0060]).
Choosing a combination of polyethylene glycol, HDPE and barium titanate is prima facie obvious.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have prepared a composite filament for FFF using the composition of Hekal, as WO ‘622 teaches that molding of similar compositions by way of FFF/3D printing into filament form reduces dimensional changes in the final article.
Note Hekal similarly desires dimensional stability (col. 7, ll. 16-21).
As to the claimed particle size, Hekal teaches that the particles used in the example, molecular sieves, have an outline of 1-10 micron, suggesting that the particles are less than 10 micron, as claimed. Hekal also exemplifies the use of Carbopol particles as component C, which as evidenced by Wollner have a particle size of 3-10 microns (col. 4, ll. 47-55). Therefore, it can be seen that micron sized particles are clearly within the scope of component C taught by Hekal.
Hekal in view of WO ‘622 is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1, 5-6 and 25.
As to claim 7, Hekal teaches the preferential affinity between components B and C is greater than between components A and C, suggesting that some sort of non-covalent interaction.
As to claim 8, Example 1, Film 3 exemplifies a blend of about 35 wt% polyolefin and 12 wt% polyethylene glycol, suggesting a weight ratio of the first to second polymer of about 74:26.
As to claim 12, Hekal teaches that C may be composed of one or more type of absorbing material, where carbon-based materials are listed as absorbing materials differing from barium titanate. Choosing a combination of barium titanate and carbon based materials is prima facie obvious.
As to claim 26, FFF filaments are known as being very long. WO ‘622 teaches the filament as having a diameter of up to 1 meter, and a filament has a length which is much greater than its diameter. 1 meter is about 3.2 feet; therefore, WO ‘622 teaches a filament which has a length that can exceed 1 foot, as claimed.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hekal (US 2002/0132869) in view of WO 2022/010622, as applied above to claims 1, 5-8, 10, 12 and 25-26, and further in view of Baran (US 8,618,202).
Hekal in view of WO ‘622 is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1, 5-8, 10, 12 and 25-26, as described above and applied herein as such, as Hekal teaches a combination of component A, a first polymer; component B, a second polymer; and C a particle, where the particle can be a piezoelectric barium titanate, A and B are immiscible, C has a preferential affinity for B over A and the two phases, A and B/C, form co-continuous interconnecting channel morphology, where WO ‘622 teaches similar compositions which can be 3D molded which provides dimensional stability to the final product.
Hekal teaches that the particle C has a preferential affinity for B over A, but does not teach particle C as being substantially non-agglomerated.
Baran teaches a continuous phase of at least one polymer and surface-modified nanoparticles, and a dispersed phase comprising at least one polymer, where the continuous polymer phase and the dispersed polymer phase are immiscible (col. 1, ll. 45-60). Baran teaches the surface modified particles are not aggregated or agglomerated (col. 2, ll. 32-36). Baran teaches that when individual particles which are surface treated, the surface treatment is distributed over the entire surface of the particle, and prevents the particles from being aggregated (col. 3, ll. 45-50). Baran teaches reacting a surface modifier with the nanoparticles (col. 6, ll. 16-20), and the surface groups can be selected to associate or react with at least one component of the continuous phase to become part of the polymeric network (col. 4, ll. 1-13), suggesting covalent bonding of the particles to the polymer of the continuous phase. Baran teaches that the surface-modified particles are selected to be compatible with the continuous phase of polymer the polymer blend (col. 3, ll. 56-67), suggesting that the surface modification increases the affinity of the particles for one of the polymers of the blend.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have surface treated the particles of Hekal to prevent agglomeration and increase the affinity of the particles for polymer B, as Hekal clearly desires the particles as having preferential affinity for B over A.
Hekal in view of WO ‘622 and further in view of Baran is prima facie obvious over instant claims 7 and 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that the micron sized particles exemplified by Hekal are molecular sieves, and not the claimed piezoelectric particles.
While the examiner agrees, Hekal teaches that piezoelectric particles can be used as an alternative to molecular sieves.
Again, Hekal teaches that the particles used in the example, molecular sieves, have an outline of 1-10 micron, suggesting that the particles are less than 10 micron, as claimed. Hekal also exemplifies the use of Carbopol particles as component C, which as evidenced by Wollner have a particle size of 3-10 microns (col. 4, ll. 47-55).
Therefore, it can be seen that micron sized particles are clearly within the scope of component C taught by Hekal, regardless of whether the particle C is a piezoelectric compound or a molecular sieve or a polymer particle.
Applicants argue that Hekal only teaches that the majority of component C is located within a second phase with component B, where “majority” does not mean “all” as required for “localization” of the piezoelectric particles in one of the first polymer material or the second polymer material.
In the specification, applicants disclose that the particles as being substantially localized, where the amount reading on substantially is not defined. At no point do applicants disclose that “all” of the particles are localized or describe the amount of particles which are localized. The term majority is defined to mean an amount of greater than 50%. Substantially is defined as to a large degree. These terms appear to overlap in meaning and interpretation within the art.
Even further, from observing Figure 6, applicants disclose “FIG. 6 is a cross-sectional SEM image of the composite of Example 2. As shown, a co-continuous morphology was formed, with the PZT particles distributed throughout the continuous PLA phase but not significantly in the PS phase.”
Here, not “all” of the PZT particles are localized, but rather a significant amount of them are. Significant is defined as important, large or great.
From Fig. 6, the majority of the particles are localized.
Hekal therefore reads on the claimed limitation of the particles being localized in one of the polymer materials.
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 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
