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 Applicant’s response to election/restriction of 12/16/2025 and the IDS filed 12/16/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 24-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/16/2025.
Claims 1-16 and 24-25 are pending. Claims 1-16 are being examined. Claims 17-23 and 26-27 are canceled. Claims 24-25 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to non-elected inventions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ayarza et al. (Ayarza et al., "Mechanically Promoted Synthesis of Polymer Organogels via Disulfide Bond Cross-Linking", ACS Macro Letters, 2021, Vol. 10(7), pp. 799-804).
Considering claim 1, Ayarza teaches a composition comprising a polymer network, reactive groups and/or linkers formed by reaction of the reactive groups (i.e., reaction scheme for mechanically promoted cross-linking of mercapto-polymers via disulfide bond formation) and a mechano-chemical transducer dispersed in the composition (ZnO nanoparticles) (Ayarza, abstract, Fig. 1(b), 3rd paragraph of 1st column on page 800).
Considering claims 4-5, Ayarza teaches the reactive groups comprises thiol groups and the linkers comprise disulfide bonds (Ayarza, Fig. 1(b)).
Considering claims 6-8, Ayarza teaches the mechano-chemical transducer comprises piezoelectric nanostructures comprising zinc oxide (ZnO) (Ayarza, abstract, Fig. 1(b), 3rd paragraph of 1st column on page 800).
Considering claims 9-10, Ayarza teaches the mechano-chemical transducer is responsive to ultrasound and/or vibrations at sub-ultrasound frequencies to induce the reaction or reactive groups by teaching use of mechanical energy in the form of ultrasound (40 kHz) and low frequency vibrations (2 kHz) to synthesize the organogels (Ayarza, abstract). Moreover, paragraph [0037] of instant specification discloses that ZnO nanostructures are responsive to electrical energy to induce the reaction of the reactive groups.
Considering claim 11, the claims are directed to a composition comprising a polymer network, reactive groups (thiol groups) and/or linkers (disulfide bonds) formed by reaction of the reactive groups and a mechano-chemical transducer dispersed in the composition (ZnO nanoparticles). Ayarza teaches the claimed composition. Thus, it would be expected that the composition of Ayarza would also be responsive to stress to strengthen selectively according to the distribution of stress in the composition.
Considering claim 12, Ayarza teaches the polymer network comprises crosslinks formed by reaction of the reactive groups (i.e., crosslinks formed from the reactive -SH groups) (Ayarza, Figure 1(b)).
Considering claim 13, Ayarza teaches the composition further comprises a primary polymer network (Ayarza, Figure 1(b)).
Considering claim 15, Ayarza teaches recycled mercapto-PMMA shows lesser solubility in organic solvents than the virgin polymer and contains higher molecular weight species; ionic crosslinks may have formed form solubilized ZnO or irreversible thioether bonds from the desulfurization of sulfides (Ayarza, middle of 1st column on page 802). Thus, Ayarza teaches the reaction is irreversible (i.e., irreversible thioether bonds from the desulfurization of sulfides).
Considering claim 16, Ayarza teaches the reaction is reversible by teaching reversing the mechano-gelation process of mercapto-PMA and recycling the polymer (Ayarza, 1st paragraph of 2nd column on page 802).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2-3, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayarza et al. (Ayarza et al., "Mechanically Promoted Synthesis of Polymer Organogels via Disulfide Bond Cross-Linking", ACS Macro Letters, 2021, Vol. 10(7), pp. 799-804 in view of Wang et al. (Wang et al., "Bio-inspired Mechanically Adaptive Materials Through Vibration-induced Crosslinking," Nature Materials, 2021, Vol. 20, pp. 869-874).
Considering claims 2-3, 11 and 14, all of the limitations are met by the prior art referenced in meeting claim 1 limitations except for the reactive groups comprise thiol groups and one or both of alkene and alkyne groups and the primary network comprises methyl-cellulose.
Ayarza teaches the reactive groups comprise thiol groups wherein the linkers comprise thioether groups (Ayarza, Figure 1(b) and bottom of 1st column on page 802), he does not explicitly teach the reactive groups comprise one or both of alkene and alkyne groups.
However, Wang teaches bio-inspired mechanically adaptive materials through vibration-induce crosslinking; in nature, bone adapts to mechanical forces it experiences, strengthening itself to match the conditions placed upon it; Wang teaches a composite material that adapts to the mechanical environment it experiences; adaptation in the material is managed by mechanically responsive ZnO, which controls a crosslinking reaction between a thiol and an alkene within a polymer composite gel; the composite material uses a method of mechanical polymerization to selectively self-strengthen (Wang, abstract, paragraph before “Online content” section on page 874). Wang teaches the composite comprises methyl cellulose as the primary polymer network and that the crosslinks form thiol-ene components with the polymer network; thiol-ene chemistry well suited for polymerization in an adaptive system given its wide solvent compatibility, oxygen tolerance and induction by ultra-sonication (Wang, 2nd paragraph of 2nd column on page 869, 1st column on page 870 and Figure 1(b)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the composition of Ayarza to comprise methyl-cellulose as the primary polymer network and alkene reactive group. 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 use thiol-ene crosslinking for wide solvent compatibility, oxygen tolerance and induction by ultra-sonication and to use a network to resemble the bone remodeling behavior that materials can adapt accordingly to the loading location with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
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