Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/233,416

IN-PROCESS ULTRASONIC POLLING OF 3D PRINTED CRYSTALLINE/SEMICRYSTALLINE ELECTROACTIVE POLYMERS

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Aug 14, 2023
Examiner
MACHNESS, ARIELLA
Art Unit
1743
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC.
OA Round
4 (Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
92 granted / 154 resolved
-5.3% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+30.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
197
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
50.3%
+10.3% vs TC avg
§102
21.4%
-18.6% vs TC avg
§112
22.1%
-17.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 154 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Amendment In view of the amendment filed 02/23/2026: Claims 14, 16, 19, and 22-27 are pending. Claims 1-13, 15, 17, 18, 20, and 21 are cancelled. 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 (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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 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 nonobviousness. 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. Claim(s) 14, 16, 19, 22-25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarbutton et al. (US20160016369), and further in view of Kim et al. (“Enhanced electroactive b- phase of the sonication-process-derived PVDF-activated carbon composite film for efficient energy conversion and a battery-free acceleration sensor” J. Mater. Chem. C, 2017, 5, 4833), and Gunduz et al. (“3D printing of extremely viscous materials using ultrasonic vibrations”, Additive Manufacturing, 2018, 22, pg. 98-103). Regarding claim 14, Tarbutton teaches system (Figure 2) for producing a structure (see “USC” logo in Figure 2). The structure is capable of having at least one region of piezoelectric properties (Abstract: “Methods for forming a piezoelectric device are provided. The method can comprise: electrically poling and printing the piezoelectric device from a polymeric filament simultaneously”) and at least one region without piezoelectric properties ([0052] The PVDF phase with respect to electric poling conditions was investigated. Here the Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR, Galaxy series FTIR 5000) was used to obtain an infrared spectrum of absorption of PVDF samples fabricated by AM process under different electric poling conditions. First, the filament as printing material was measured as a reference, and then, three printed PVDF samples were measured as presented in FIG. 4. It was found that samples that the electric field was not applied show nearly similar results with those of PVDF filament), the system comprising: an additive manufacturing apparatus comprising a print head (see extruder in Figure 3A) movable in at least one dimension relative to a base configured to support the structure being produced (see extruder attached to gantry above printing bed in Figure 3A that would make it capable of moving in at least one dimension relative to the printing bed), the print head comprising a heater block ([0050] The extruder was constructed of stepper motor-driven filament feeding mechanism, heater, thermocouple and nozzle tip. The extruder pushed the filament down, and the filament molten by heater was printed through the nozzle tip; see heater blocks in Figure 2); wherein the print head is configured to extrude the polymer melt over a substrate and/or over a previously deposited layer of the structure ([0050] The extruder pushed the filament down, and the filament molten by heater was printed through the nozzle tip), and the structure is formed by sequentially dispensing layers of the polymer melt extruded from the print head on top of each other ([0056] The component can be produced by extruding small beads of thermoplastic material to form layers as the material hardens immediately after extrusion from the nozzle… At the end, the component is built from the bottom up, one layer at a time), wherein the dispensing comprises: dispensing portions of the structure while the electric field generating device is in an on state so that the portions of the structure have piezoelectric properties ([0052] While, new peaks were found in the samples that the electric filed was applied. In addition, existing peaks became sharp at certain wavenumbers. In the samples fabricated under high electric field, the peaks could clearly be seen at the wavenumber, 874, whose crystalline is β phase, and the wavenumber 1178, α phase. And it was found that those peaks show the tendency to being sharper as the strength of electric field increases); and dispensing other portions of the structure while the electric field generating device is in an off state so that the other portions of the structure do not have piezoelectric properties and act as insulators ([0052] The PVDF phase with respect to electric poling conditions was investigated. Here the Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR, Galaxy series FTIR 5000) was used to obtain an infrared spectrum of absorption of PVDF samples fabricated by AM process under different electric poling conditions. First, the filament as printing material was measured as a reference, and then, three printed PVDF samples were measured as presented in FIG. 4. It was found that samples that the electric field was not applied show nearly similar results with those of PVDF filament); wherein the structure is capable of exhibiting at least one region of piezoelectric properties (Abstract: “Methods for forming a piezoelectric device are provided. The method can comprise: electrically poling and printing the piezoelectric device from a polymeric filament simultaneously”) and at least one region without piezoelectric properties ([0052] The PVDF phase with respect to electric poling conditions was investigated. Here the Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR, Galaxy series FTIR 5000) was used to obtain an infrared spectrum of absorption of PVDF samples fabricated by AM process under different electric poling conditions. First, the filament as printing material was measured as a reference, and then, three printed PVDF samples were measured as presented in FIG. 4. It was found that samples that the electric field was not applied show nearly similar results with those of PVDF filament). Tarbutton further teaches a high electric field poles a PVDF melt within the print head by activating the PVDF β-phase ([0006] Applying a strong electric field to β phase PVDF results in dipole alignment along the electric field and is referred as contact poling and ([0048] Here a strong electric field, 2 MV/m, allows for dipole alignment of PVDF polymer fiber poled mechanically between the nozzle tip and bed plate) and causes an alignment and/or relaxation of polymeric chains within the polymer melt ([0045] In order to obtain β phase PVDF, electrically inactive a phase PVDF is first prepared by a stretching and electric poling process at the same time while printing the structures made of PVDF polymer. The directions of polarization of individual crystallites in PVDF polymer filament are randomly distributed, whereas the polarization directions become biased towards the direction of the applied electric field after stretching and electric poling processes. Thus, PVDF polymer thermally molten in the extruder can be realigned to crystallize in β phase structure with dipoles of all chains under stretching and electric poling processes), causes the structure to have piezoelectric properties ([0052] It can be seen that PVDF device fabricated under higher electric field condition, 2.0 MV/m, produces the higher current, ±0.37 nA with respect to displacement direction when the sample is subjected to cyclic loading, “On” and does not produce the current when it is stationary). However, Tarbutton fails to teach that poling occurs by ultrasound application such that an ultrasound generating device connected to the print head is configured to generate acoustic energy that is transferred to a polymer melt contained within the print head to cause the causes alignment and/or relaxation of polymeric chains within the polymer melt. In the field reasonably pertinent to the problem of electroactive β-phase activation of PVDF by poling, Kim teaches an ultrasound generating device is configured to generate acoustic energy that is transferred to PVDF (“a self-poled pure PVDF film was developed using the sonication process, with the sound energy as an input source to originate the highly electroactive b-phase of PVDF (≈73.04%) without the requirement of any additional electrical poling process”- pg. 4834-4835; also see ultrasonication of PVDF solution in Figure 1). Kim teaches that there is a desire to eliminate the need for external electrical poling of PVDF structures (“All these approaches pave the way the elimination of the need for external electrical poling of PVDF structures and help improve their performance in terms of energy generation, mechanical stiffness, and thermal stability. Thus an alternative approach is required to develop self-poled pure PVDF films and composite films for the efficient conversion of mechanical energy to electrical energy”- see pg. 4834). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the electrical poling of Tarbutton with the ultrasonic poling of Kim, as there is a need for eliminating external electrical poling of PVDF structures. Further, ultrasonic poling has a known improvement of avoiding high voltage application while helping improving the PVDF performance. However, Tarbutton fails to teach the ultrasound generating device is connected to the print head via a connecting rod to reduce heat transfer to the ultrasound generating device from the heater block, wherein the acoustic energy causes an oscillatory vibration of the print head. In the same field of endeavor pertaining to additive manufacturing, Gunduz teaches the ultrasound generating device (ultrasonic actuator in Figure 1 on pg. 100) is connected to the print head (reservoir and nozzle in Figure 1 on pg. 100) via a connecting rod (see probe in Figure 1 on pg. 100), wherein the acoustic energy causes an oscillatory vibration of the print head (“Fig. 2 shows the still image of the vibrating nozzle and results from finite element vibration analysis using COMSOL… The measured nozzle tip displacements were consistent with the results of the enhanced optical videos”- see 3. Results and discussion on pg. 99 and Figure 2). Connecting the ultrasound generating device to the nozzle tip localizes ultrasonic vibrations within the nozzle tip to enable printing with precise flow control. (Abstract: “This study shows that inducing high-amplitude ultrasonic vibrations within a nozzle imparts sufficient inertial forces to these materials to drastically reduce effective wall friction and flow stresses, enabling their 3D printing with moderate back pressures (<1MPa) at high rates and with precise flow control”). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the ultrasound generating device of Tarbutton modified with Kim be connected to the print head via a connecting rod such that the acoustic energy causes an oscillatory vibration of the print head, as taught by Gunduz, for the benefit of localizing the ultrasonic vibrations to within the nozzle tip to enable printing with precise flow control. Further, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to have the ultrasound generating device connected to the nozzle tip via a connecting rod, as taught by Gunduz, to localize the ultrasonic vibrations to within the nozzle tip such that heat transfer to the ultrasound generating device from the heater block is reduced. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success to couple the ultrasonic device to the print head, since Tarbutton teaches that the external stimulus that poles the PVDF melt (i.e. voltage) is applied between the extrusion nozzle and deposition substrate. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would look to placing the external stimulus of an ultrasound onto the nozzle to generate poling of the polymer melt. Regarding claim 16, Tarbutton modified with Kim and Gunduz teaches method of claim 14. Further, Tarbutton teaches the method comprising a heater block within a hot-end section of the print head that heats a polymeric feeder material to form the polymer melt ([0050] The extruder was constructed of stepper motor-driven filament feeding mechanism, heater, thermocouple and nozzle tip. The extruder pushed the filament down, and the filament molten by heater was printed through the nozzle tip; see heater near nozzle tip forming polymer melt in Figure 9B and Figure 9C). Regarding claim 19, Tarbutton modified with Kim and Gunduz teaches the system of claim 18. Further, Tarbutton teaches wherein the polymeric chains are fixed within the polymer melt after the polymer melt is extruded from the print head, such that the alignment and/or relaxation of the polymeric chains is maintained by a hardening of the polymer melt when the polymer melt is cooled ([0040] In this process, the PVDF polymer dipoles remain well aligned and uniform over a large area in a single design, production and fabrication step and [0056] The component can be produced by extruding small beads of thermoplastic material to form layers as the material hardens immediately after extrusion from the nozzle). Regarding claim 22, Tarbutton modified with Kim and Gunduz teaches the system of claim 14. Further, Tarbutton teaches wherein the polymer melt is created by melting a source of a polymer comprising polyvinylidenefluoride (PVDF) ([0040]). Regarding claim 23, Tarbutton modified with Kim and Gunduz teaches the system of claim 14. Further, Tarbutton teaches wherein each dispensed layer has a shape corresponding to a cross-section of the structure being produced ([0056] The component can be produced by extruding small beads of thermoplastic material to form layers as the material hardens immediately after extrusion from the nozzle). Regarding claim 24, Tarbutton modified with Kim and Chen teaches the system of claim 14. Further, Gunduz teaches wherein the oscillatory vibration of the print head is caused by a movement of the print head in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the print head (see Figure 2). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the ultrasound generating device of Tarbutton modified with Kim be connected to the print head such that the oscillatory vibration of the print head is caused by a movement of the print head in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the print head, as taught by Gunduz, for the benefit of localizing the ultrasonic vibrations to within the nozzle tip to enable printing with precise flow control. Regarding claim 25, Tarbutton modified with Kim and Gunduz teaches the system of claim 24. Further, Tarbutton teaches wherein the polymer melt is extruded from a nozzle of the print head, the nozzle being coaxial to the longitudinal axis of the print head (see polymer melt extruded from nozzle end in Figure 9B and Figure 9C). Regarding claim 27, Tarbutton modified with Kim and Gunduz teaches the system of claim 22. Further, Tarbutton teaches the PVDF filament is semi-crystalline ([0005] PVDF is a semi- crystalline polymer commercially available as…), and that the FTIR spectrum of printed PVDF when no electric field is applied is nearly similar to that of the PVDF filament ([0052] The PVDF phase with respect to electric poling conditions was investigated. Here the Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR, Galaxy series FTIR 5000) was used to obtain an infrared spectrum of absorption of PVDF samples fabricated by AM process under different electric poling conditions. First, the filament as printing material was measured as a reference, and then, three printed PVDF samples were measured as presented in FIG. 4. It was found that samples that the electric field was not applied show nearly similar results with those of PVDF filament), indicating that the PVDF is semi-crystalline when no electric field is applied during printing. The PVDF devices formed with different electric fields, including 2.0 mV/m, indicated the formation of the crystalline α phase and β phase, which increased as the strength of the electric field applied during the PVDF device formation increased ([0052] While, new peaks were found in the samples that the electric filed was applied. In addition, existing peaks became sharp at certain wavenumbers. In the samples fabricated under high electric field, the peaks could clearly be seen at the wavenumber, 874, whose crystalline is β phase, and the wavenumber 1178, α phase. And it was found that those peaks show the tendency to being sharper as the strength of electric field increases). Therefore, the system of Tarbutton modified with Kim and Gunduz is capable of forming structures with crystalline PVDF in the at least one region of piezoelectric properties and semi- crystalline PVDF in the at least one region without piezoelectric properties. Claim(s) 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarbutton et al. (US20160016369), Kim et al. (“Enhanced electroactive b- phase of the sonication-process- derived PVDF-activated carbon composite film for efficient energy conversion and a battery- free acceleration sensor” J. Mater. Chem. C, 2017, 5, 4833) and Gunduz et al. (“3D printing of extremely viscous materials using ultrasonic vibrations”, Additive Manufacturing, 2018, 22, pg. 98-103), and further in view of Groninger et al. (US20050285908). Regarding claim 26, Tarbutton modified with Kim and Chen teaches the system of claim 14. While Gunduz teaches a transducer steel probe with a resonant frequency of 30 kHz (see 2.1. 3D printing system on pg. 99), neither Tarbutton nor Gunduz teach the acoustic energy is a frequency that is substantially similar to a natural frequency of the additive manufacturing apparatus, prompting one of ordinary skill to look to natural vibration frequencies in print heads. In the same field of endeavor pertaining to print heads, Groninger teaches the acoustic energy has a frequency that is substantially similar to a natural frequency of the additive manufacturing apparatus, prompting one of ordinary skill to look to vibration frequencies in print heads ([0006] a natural frequency of the system substantially corresponds to a natural frequency of a disturbance in the system and [0024]). An acoustic energy frequency that is substantially similar to the natural frequency of the print head allows for the acoustic energy to be reflected relatively strongly in an electric signal ([0024] this means that a pressure wave having a frequency corresponding to a natural frequency is reflected relatively strongly in said electric signal). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the acoustic energy of Tarbutton modified with Kim and Gunduz have a frequency that is substantially similar to a natural frequency of the print head, as taught by Groninger, for the benefit of having a relatively strong reflected frequency in an electric signal. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 14 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. 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 ARIELLA MACHNESS whose telephone number is (408)918-7587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:30-2:30 PT. 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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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. /ARIELLA MACHNESS/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 14, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 30, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 04, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 11, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jun 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 18, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 01, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 23, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 24, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600084
Additive Manufacturing System
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600088
PRINTHEAD FOR A 3D PRINTER AND METHOD FOR OPERATING A PRINTHEAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594724
MODULE FOR SUPPLYING ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING POWDER ALLOWING DRYING OF THE POWDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594601
MODULE FOR SUPPLYING ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING POWDER ALLOWING THE TRANSFER OF POWDER INTO A CONTAINER UNDER AN INERT ATMOSPHERE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594713
THREE-DIMENSIONAL FREEZE EXTRUSION FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF HOMOGENEOUS AND GRADED RODS AND TUBES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+30.0%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 154 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month