The arguments and amendments submitted 02/05/2026 have been considered. In light of amendments made, all prior USC § 112(b) rejections are hereby withdrawn. The merits of the claims are discussed below.
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 or 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 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 of this title, 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 31-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polk (US PG Pub 2011/0277926) in view of French (WO 86/02876A1).
Regarding claim 31, Polk teaches a method of forming a thermoplastic vascular structure (abstract, claims 1-20, Figs. 3-12), the method comprising:
forming at least one first recess in the first thermoplastic sheet (claim 1, steps b and d);
forming at least one second recess in the second thermoplastic sheet (claim 1, steps b and d);
aligning the at least one first recess to the at least one second recess (claim 1, step e; claim 3, para. 0041, and as shown in Figs. 8-9); and
wherein bonding the first thermoplastic sheet to the second thermoplastic sheet (claim 1, steps e and f; and as shown in Figs. 9-10) creates a continuous branched vascular network structure (as shown in Figs. 11-12), and
wherein the bonding of first thermoplastic sheet to the second thermoplastic sheet with an alignment of the at least one first recess to the at least one second recess creates at least one fluid channel through the continuous branched vascular network structure (paras. 0031-0032 and as shown in Fig. 12).
Polk does not teach applying an adhesive to the first thermoplastic sheet or to the second thermoplastic sheet, wherein the adhesive bonds the first thermoplastic sheet to the second thermoplastic sheet.
However, French teaches a method of thermobonding thermoplastic structures (claim 23) wherein an adhesive is applied to the first thermoplastic sheet or to the second thermoplastic sheet together with the thermobonding (pg. 18, lines 12-15), wherein the adhesive bonds the first thermoplastic sheet to the second thermoplastic sheet (pg. 18, lines 12-15). French further teaches that use of adhesive in this manner augments (i.e. further strengthens) the bond seal and integrity (pg. 18, lines 13-16).
In view of French’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Polk’s method to include French’s step of adhesive application to predictably obtain the benefits taught by French as cited above.
Regarding claim 32, Polk teaches placing the first thermoplastic sheet on the first structure-forming mold, wherein the first thermoplastic sheet covers the at least one first recessed portion (claim 1, step a and as shown in Fig. 5); and
placing the second thermoplastic sheet on the second structure-forming mold, wherein the second thermoplastic sheet covers the at least one second recessed portion (as shown in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 33, Polk teaches fitting a first designated portion of the first thermoplastic sheet into the at least one first recessed portion of the first structure-forming mold such that the first designated portion of the first thermoplastic sheet contours to a shape of the at least one first recessed portion of the first structure-forming mold to create the at least one first recess in the first thermoplastic sheet and fitting a second designated portion of the second thermoplastic sheet into the at least one second recessed portion of the second structure-forming mold such that the second designated portion of the second thermoplastic sheet contours to a shape of the at least one second recessed portion of the second structure-forming mold to create the at least one second recess in the second thermoplastic sheet (claim 1, step d).
Regarding claim 34, Polk teaches aligning the first structure-forming mold containing the first thermoplastic sheet to the second structure-forming mold containing the second thermoplastic sheet; aligning the first thermoplastic sheet to the second thermoplastic sheet such that the at least one first recess in the first thermoplastic sheet aligns with the at least one second recess in the second thermoplastic sheet (claim 1, step e; claim 3, para. 0041, and as shown in Figs. 8-9).
Regarding claim 35, Polk teaches deforming the first thermoplastic sheet and the second thermoplastic sheet by a process comprising: heating the first thermoplastic sheet and the second thermoplastic sheet (claim 1, step b); and applying a vacuum process to shape the first thermoplastic sheet and the second thermoplastic sheet (claim 1, step d).
Regarding claim 36, Polk teaches cooling the continuous branched vascular network structure (claim 1, step g); removing the first structure-forming mold and the second structure-forming mold from the continuous branched vascular network structure (“To assist removing the molded article from the first and second mold portions (11, 29) a gas (e.g., air) may be passed out of perforations (20, 38) of at least one mold portion at elevated pressure” per para. 0025; and selectively sizing the continuous branched vascular network structure (“The enclosed passage is dimensioned for the receipt and passage of a heat exchange fluid there-through” per para. 0044).
Regarding claim 37, Polk teaches the bonding of the first thermoplastic sheet to the second thermoplastic sheet comprises performing a welding process utilizing heat to bond the first thermoplastic sheet to the second thermoplastic sheet (claim 1, step f).
Allowable Subject Matter
Amended claims 8-12, 14, 16-17, and new claims 38-42 are allowed in view of the present amendments and incorporation of allowable subject matter indicated in Sections 19-21 of the previous office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/2026 have been fully considered and have been addressed in the sections above and/or below.
Regarding new claim 31, Applicant argues that this newly presented claim is allowable because Polk does not teach adhesive application and bonding as recited in the claim.
However, this argument is not persuasive because it fails to consider French’s explicit teachings of using adhesive bonding to augment thermobonding when joining thermoplastic sheets and the benefits thereof that would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the two types of bonding when joining thermoplastic sheets, as described in the rejection of the claim above. Furthermore, it is noted that newly presented claim 31 differs in scope from previously searched and examined claim 17.
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 JIM R SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9-6 MST.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/JRS/
Examiner
Art Unit 1745
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights