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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 15, 2025 has been entered.
Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1, 5-10, 12 and 25-26 are currently pending and under examination.
All previous prior art rejections are withdrawn, as applicants have amended to limit the type of piezoelectric particles and the fact that they are localized in one of the first or second thermoplastic polymers.
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, 5-10 and 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4-5, 7-10 and 12 of copending Application No. 17/995,658 (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 (claims 2 and 4), where the polymers are thermoplastic (claim 3), the polymer materials are co-continuously distributed (claim 6), 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.
App. No. ‘658 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 App. No. ‘658 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 App. No. ‘658 inherently meets applicants’ elongate form.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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).
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “substantially” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1886802 and US 6,599,631, optionally in view of Macinnis (US 2020/0307056).
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 is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1 and 5.
As to claim 7, 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]).
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]).
Claims 1, 5-7, 10 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegel (US 2007/0199729) in view of US 2021/0050716.
Siegel teaches a field grading material comprising an effective amount of a nanoparticle filler (1-100 nm) distributed in a polymeric matrix, where the filler is heterogeneously distributed in the polymer matrix (Abstract). Siegel teaches that a heterogeneous distribution may be achieved by blending immiscible polymers to result in multiple phases as the nanoparticles are heterogeneously distributed within the polymers (p. 3, [0018]). The phases are typically co-continuous with the nanoparticles in the one of the phases or at the interface (p. 3, [0018]). Siegel teaches that the selection of materials should be such that favorable phase morphology (phase separation) develops between the phases, suggesting blends of polyethylene/EPDM (p. 3, [0018]).
Siegel teaches the nanoparticles to include barium strontium titanate and barium titanate (p. 2, [0013]), both of which are known piezoelectric particles. Siegel also teaches that the surface of the nanoparticle filler is modified by treatment with a coupling agent prior to preparing the nanocomposite (p. 3, [0022]), teaching that the coupling agents are capable of reacting with both the reinforcement and the resin matrix of a composite material and may also bond fillers to organic resins to form or promote a stronger bond at the interface (Id.).
Siegel teaches that the nanoparticles are suitable dispersed in the polymeric matrix by ordinary melt-mixing (p. 3, [0016]), but does not teach forming a composite filament of an elongate form, as claimed.
Elser teaches a method of preparing an electrical power device having field grading behavior by way of additive manufacturing by way of material extrusion (p. 1, [0011], [0028], [0031], [0041]), where FFF is a well known method of material extrusion in the art of additive manufacturing which uses filaments. Polyethylene is taught as a suitable polymeric material for use in the additive manufacturing (p. 1, [0012]).
Therefor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used additive manufacturing to shape the field grading material of Siegel, as Elser teaches a suitable method for such, teaching that by way of additive manufacturing, devices with tailor-made mechanical and electrical properties can be made (p. 4, [0044]).
Siegel in view of Elser is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1, 5-7, 10, and 25.
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.
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).
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 10, Hekal teaches that the particle used in the example, molecular sieves, have an outline of 1-10 micron, suggesting that the particles are less than 10 micron, as claimed.
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 with respect to the instant invention have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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