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
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 10-11, 13-19, and 21-24 are pending. Claims 4-5 have been cancelled. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 17-19 and 21 have been withdrawn. Claims 22-24 are new. The objection is withdrawn in view of the amendment. The prior art rejections are revised in view of the amendment. Applicant has, with modifications, incorporated claims 4-5 into claim 1 and argues that the claims are non-obvious because iterating and retesting the design is not explicit in Isakov ("3D printed anisotropic dielectric composite with meta-material features", MATERIALS & DESIGN, ELSEVIER, AMSTERDAM, NL, vol. 93, 5 January 2016 (2016-01-05), pages 423-430, XP029394866, ISSN: 0264-1275). Iterating and testing a design is an ordinary approach to the development of a product, and reference is made to Formlabs (The Ultimate Guide to Rapid Prototyping for Product Development) to rebut Applicant’s argument.
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 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.
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) 1-3, 6-7, 10-11, 13-16, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isakov ("3D printed anisotropic dielectric composite with meta-material features", MATERIALS & DESIGN, ELSEVIER, AMSTERDAM, NL, vol. 93, 5 January 2016 (2016-01-05), pages 423-430, XP029394866, ISSN: 0264-1275) in view of Bhatt (US 2021/02373642), optionally Formlabs (The Ultimate Guide to Rapid Prototyping for Product Development), and optionally Hoyt (US 2015/0048209).
Regarding claim 1, Isakov teaches a method for manufacturing an electromagnetic radiation altering article (“The focus of this paper is to consider the application of AM for
the fabrication new electromagnetic materials, that after further development,
could be used to realize various artificial phenomena such as
cloaking [25–27], photonic bandgap crystals [28], left-handed metamaterials
[29,30], and novel microwave circuits and antennas [31]”, section 1), which comprises the steps of: a) forming an electromagnetic radiation altering material by providing a polymer matrix and optionally embedding a plurality of dielectric particles in the polymer matrix (“Our
printed structures comprise a thin coupon (d b λ, where d is the coupon thickness and λ is the wavelength of incident microwave radiation, in the range from 12 to 18 GHz) within which there alternating layers, or ‘stripes’, of relatively low (polymer only) and high (polymer plus inorganic particles) dielectric constant materials.”; “Our implementation of FDM used two continuous thermoplastic based filaments as feedstock, one comprising polymer only, and the other the same polymer but with a high fraction of high permittivity inorganic microparticles.
The filaments were melted in the print head and then extruded onto the forming coupon by the print head moving in the xy-plane according to the CAD file”), the dielectric particles being barium titanates particles (Table 1, section 3.1);
b) obtaining initial dielectric properties of the electromagnetic radiation altering material (“Using the dielectric properties of each type of printed material”, section 2), comprising the initial relative dielectric permittivity (εr 1) and the initial dielectric loss tangent (tan delta 1) when measured at a frequency F1 (“The dielectric properties of as-printed materials, with no layering or anisotropic design, was carefully characterized before resonating structures were designed, using a split-post dielectric resonator (SPDR, QWED) technique [39] and a Rohde&Schwarz ZNB20 vector network analyser. The resonator is designed for a nominal 15 GHz frequency and the actual measurements were taken at a frequency close to the nominal. The SPDR technique allows the determination of complex permittivity with greater sensitivity than transmission-reflection methods, albeit at a single frequency, and provides more reliable measurements in low loss (tan δ<0.05) materials.”, section 2);
c) modeling electromagnetic radiation altering features of the electromagnetic radiation altering material suitable for the electromagnetic radiation altering article obtained from the electromagnetic radiation altering material to have target electromagnetic radiation altering properties, thereby obtaining a simulation of the electromagnetic radiation altering article (“Using the dielectric properties of each type of printed material, the commercial Comsol Multiphysics RF module, which is a flexible implementation of the finite element method, was used to model the wave propagation in layered or striped coupons and to suggest the relative dimensions of each stripe to achieve the desired performance. A 3D model of the coupons, with predefined material properties (for each type of material) observed experimentally, was constructed and the electromagnetic field distribution together with complex scattering parameters were computed. Guided by the model-based design, 16 × 8 × 2 mm coupons were printed suitable for insertion following edge polishing into a Ku-band waveguide for characterization of dielectric properties using the VNA and the transmission/reflection line (TRL) technique. The TRL technique involved measuring the two port complex scattering reflected (S11) and transmitted (S21) parameters in the frequency range from 12 to 18 GHz so that the relative complex permittivity ϵr and permeability μr could then be obtained using the widely employed Nicholson–Ross–Weir (NRW) extraction method [40].”, section 2); wherein step c) comprises the step of optimizing the electromagnetic radiation altering features of the electromagnetic radiation altering material for it to have target electromagnetic radiation altering properties (tuned permittivity, section 3.3), simulating the electromagnetic radiation altering properties of the simulation of the electromagnetic radiation altering article by conducting electromagnetic radiation altering calculations on the simulation of the electromagnetic radiation altering article, or both (simulation, section 3.3); and wherein after step c), a process is reiterated before step d), the process including a step of replacing the polymer matrix and/or the plurality of initial dielectric particles with a different polymer matrix and/or a different plurality of dielectric particles (tuning with different permittivity and other differences, Fig. 3, section 3.3), step a), step b) and step c) (experimentation and simulation constitutes reiteration as claimed, section 4); d) additive manufacturing the electromagnetic radiation altering article based on the simulation of the electromagnetic radiation altering article by performing an additive manufacturing method selected from the group consisting of stereolithography (SLA), selective laser sintering (SLS), digital light processing (DLP) material jetting, and any combinations thereof, wherein the electromagnetic radiation altering material is provided as a fluid photopolymerizable composition or a powder composition during the additive manufacturing (SLA and SLS are taught as alternative known methods of additive manufacturing with dielectric particles for these technologies, section 1, first paragraph; this is as an alternative to a FDM method, disclosed in section 1; in SLS, the electromagnetic altering material is provided in the powder); and
e) optionally, measuring the electromagnetic radiation altering properties of the electromagnetic radiation altering article obtained from additive manufacturing, and comparing the measured electromagnetic radiation altering properties of the electromagnetic radiation altering article with the target electromagnetic radiation altering properties (“The measured dielectric permittivities and loss for composites with BaTiO3, Ba0.64Sr0.36TiO3 and CaTiO3 are in good agreement with data published for polymer-ceramic composites of 0–3 connectivity
[42–44]”; good agreement entails measurement and comparison with target/theoretical properties, section 3.1).
Isakov teaches a method substantially as claimed. Isakov does not disclose wherein the polymer matrix is selected from the group consisting of polyamides, polymeric materials based on (meth)acrylate, vinyl ether, and epoxide containing monomers; thermoplastic polyurethanes (TPU); perfluoroalkoxy alkanes (PFA), and any combinations or mixtures thereof.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additively manufactured materials with thermoplastic and dielectric components (abstract, [0138] [0141]), Bhatt teaches wherein the polymer matrix is selected from the group consisting of polyamides, vinyl ether, and epoxide containing monomers; and any combinations or mixtures thereof (polyamide, epoxy, vinyl, [0138]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Isakov to use polyamide instead of ABS because [0138] of Bhatt teaches that polyamide is an art recognized equivalent to ABS in this technical context.
Assuming, arguendo, that Isakov’s teachings of experimentation and simulation are insufficient to justify the claimed reiteration, any alleged deficiency is remedied by Wood.
Solving the same problem of developing a product, Formlabs teaches the step of optimizing the features of the product have target properties (p.2-3), simulating the properties of the simulation of the product by conducting calculations on the simulation of the product, or both (p. 2-3); and wherein after step c), a process is reiterated before step d), the process including a step of replacing the specifications of the product with different specifications (p. 2-3), step a) of forming the product (p. 2-3), step b) of testing (p. 2-3) and step c) of modeling (p. 2-3).
To the extent Isakov does not teach an iteration of forming, testing, and simulating, it nonetheless would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified any alleged deficiencies in Isakov because p. 2-3 of Formlabs teaches iterating a product by producing a new object with an updated design, testing it, and adjusting again.
Assuming, arguendo, that Isakov’s teachings of SLS and SLA as alternative additive manufacturing technologies to FDM on page 1, section 1, are insufficient to establish performing an additive manufacturing method selected from the group consisting of stereolithography (SLA), selective laser sintering (SLS), digital light processing (DLP) material jetting, and any combinations thereof, wherein the electromagnetic radiation altering material is provided as a fluid photopolymerizable composition or a powder composition during the additive manufacturing, then Isakov would be deficient as to this limitation.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additively manufacturing tuned variable composition for radiation shielding in various contexts ([0007-11] [0103]), Hoyt teaches performing an additive manufacturing method selected from the group consisting of stereolithography (SLA), selective laser sintering (SLS), digital light processing (DLP) material jetting, and any combinations thereof, wherein the electromagnetic radiation altering material is provided as a fluid photopolymerizable composition or a powder composition during the additive manufacturing (“Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF), and Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) to fabricate structural components that have internal microstructure and/or controlled internal variation of material composition in order to provide multi-functional capabilities such as radiation shielding, thermal isolation, Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) shielding,” [0103]; of note, SLS production is with powder that has the controlled internal variation of material composition).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified any alleged deficiencies in Isakov regarding performing a SLS manufacturing method because [0103] of Hoyt teaches that SLS is an art recognized alternative to FFF (or FDM as taught in [0115] of Hoyt) to produce structure components with controlled internal variation of material composition for radiation shielding and EMI shielding. Accordingly, the prior art (including [0103] of Hoyt) establishes that SLS can be used to produce 3D printed objects with controlled internal variation of material composition to achieve the same technical focus of Isakov.
Regarding claim 2, Isakov as modified teaches wherein the plurality of dielectric particles is present and is randomly distributed and embedded in the polymer matrix (“polymer with a high fraction of high permittivity inorganic microparticles”, section 1).
Regarding claim 3, Isakov as modified teaches wherein the method further comprises the step of obtaining initial magnetic properties of the electromagnetic radiation altering material, comprising the initial relative magnetic permeability (εr 1), the initial magnetic loss tangent (tan delta 3), or both, when measured at a frequency F1 (sections 2, 3.3).
Regarding claim 6, Isakov as modified teaches the step of re-modeling electromagnetic radiation altering features of the electromagnetic radiation altering material and reiterating the process after the step of measuring the electromagnetic radiation altering properties of the electromagnetic radiation altering article obtained from additive manufacturing (experimentation and simulation constitutes reiteration as claimed, section 4).
Regarding claim 7, Isakov as modified teaches wherein the target electromagnetic radiation altering properties comprise dielectric properties of the electromagnetic radiation altering article comprising a target relative dielectric permittivity (εr2) and a target dielectric loss tangent (tan delta 2) (“This resonance frequency could be controlled by making use of the degrees of design freedom facilitated by 3D printing, such as the periodicity of the different units, their relative permittivities and dielectric losses.”, summary section 4; tuned permittivity, estimated permittivity, sections 3.1, 3.3), magnetic properties of the electromagnetic radiation altering material comprising a target relative magnetic permeability (μr 2), magnetic properties of the electromagnetic radiation altering material comprising a target magnetic loss tangent (tan delta 4), or any combination thereof, when measured at a frequency F2 (experimentation with different desired magnetic loss tangent and magnetic permeability, section 3.3).
Regarding claim 10, Isakov as modified teaches wherein the step of obtaining initial dielectric properties of the electromagnetic radiation altering material is performed using a measurement method selected from the group consisting of transmission method, reflection method, dielectric resonance (SPDR) method, capacitance method, LC resonance (U/I) method, perturbation method, open resonator method, and any combinations thereof (SPDR, section 2).
Regarding claim 11, Isakov as modified teaches wherein the electromagnetic radiation altering features of the electromagnetic radiation altering material are selected from the group consisting of electromagnetic lenses, diffractive gratings, frequency selective surfaces or materials, electromagnetic energy absorbers, metamaterials, and any combinations thereof (left-handed metamaterials [29,30], section 1).
Regarding claim 13, Isakov as modified teaches wherein the electromagnetic radiation altering material has an initial relative dielectric permittivity (εr 1) in the range from 1 to 3.0, from 1 to 2.8, from 1.0 to 2.5, from 1.2 to 2.3, from 1.5 to 2.0, from 4 to 11, from 4.5 to 11, from 5 to 10, from 5 to 9, from 5 to 8, or even from 12 to 15, when measured at 5.2 GHz according to the Dielectric Resonance (SPDR) Measurement Method (Table 1 shows a range of εr at 15 Ghz, with all other limitations met, these materials are likely within the range at the recited frequency).
Regarding claim 14, Isakov as modified teaches wherein the electromagnetic radiation altering material has an initial dielectric loss tangent (tan delta 1) in the range from 0.01 to 0.04, from 0.01 to 0.03, from 0.01 to 0.02, from 0.05 to 0.15, from 0.06 to 0.12, from 0.08 to0.12, from 0.2 to 0.5, from 0.2 to 0.45 or even from 0.2 to 0.4, when measured at 5.2 GHz according to the Dielectric Resonance (SPDR) Measurement Method (Table 1 shows a range of tan delta at 15 Ghz, with all other limitations met, these materials are likely within the range at the recited frequency).
Regarding claim 15, Isakov as modified teaches wherein the electromagnetic radiation altering material has an initial relative magnetic permeability (μr 1) in the range from 1 to 1.5, from 1 to 1.3 or even from 1 to 1.2, when measured at 1.0 GHz according to the LC Resonance (U/I) Measurement Method (“Using the dielectric properties of each type of printed material, the commercial Comsol Multiphysics RF module, which is a flexible implementation of the finite element method, was used to model the wave propagation in layered or striped coupons and to suggest the relative dimensions of each stripe to achieve the desired performance. A 3D model of the coupons, with predefined material properties (for each type of material) observed experimentally, was constructed and the electromagnetic field distribution together with complex scattering parameters were computed. Guided by the model-based design, 16 × 8 × 2 mm coupons were printed suitable for insertion following edge polishing into a Ku-band waveguide for characterization of dielectric properties using the VNA and the transmission/reflection line (TRL) technique. The TRL technique involved measuring the two port complex scattering reflected (S11) and transmitted (S21) parameters in the frequency range from 12 to 18 GHz so that the relative complex permittivity ϵr and permeability μr could then be obtained using the widely employed Nicholson–Ross–Weir (NRW) extraction method [40].”, section 2, with all other limitations met, these materials are likely within the range at the recited frequency).
Regarding claim 16, Isakov as modified teaches wherein the frequency F1 or F2 is in a range from 300 MHz to 300 GHz, from 300 MHz to 3 GHz, 3 GHz to 30 GHz or even from 30 GHz to 300 GHz (15 Ghz, Table 1).
Regarding claim 22, Isakov as modified teaches a method substantially as claimed. Isakov does not disclose wherein the additive manufacturing method comprises digital light processing (DLP), and wherein the electromagnetic radiation altering material is provided as a fluid photopolymerizable composition comprising polymeric materials based on (meth)acrylate containing monomers.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additively manufactured materials with thermoplastic and dielectric components (abstract, [0138] [0141]), Bhatt teaches wherein the additive manufacturing method comprises digital light processing (DLP) ([0034]), and wherein the electromagnetic radiation altering material is provided as a fluid photopolymerizable composition comprising polymeric materials based on (meth)acrylate containing monomers (feedstock with methacrylate monomers, [0113-14]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method of Isakov to perform a DLP method because [0034] of Bhatt teaches that DLP is an art recognized alternative to FFF to produce structure components with controlled internal variation of material composition for radiation shielding and EMI shielding and to have further modified Isakov for the composition to comprise polymeric materials based on (meth)acrylate containing monomers because [0113-14] of Bhatt teaches that polymeric materials based on such monomers can be used as the feedstock.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isakov ("3D printed anisotropic dielectric composite with meta-material features", MATERIALS & DESIGN, ELSEVIER, AMSTERDAM, NL, vol. 93, 5 January 2016 (2016-01-05), pages 423-430, XP029394866, ISSN: 0264-1275) in view of Bhatt (US 2021/02373642), optionally Formlabs (The Ultimate Guide to Rapid Prototyping for Product Development), and optionally Hoyt (US 2015/0048209) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fedynshyn (US 2020/0353682).
Regarding claim 23, Isakov as modified teaches wherein the additive manufacturing method comprises selective laser sintering (SLS) (as modified, Isakov section 1, Hoyt [0103], with additional support from [0034] of Bhatt), wherein the polymer matrix comprises polyamide (as modified, [0138] of Bhatt). Isakov as modified teaches a method substantially as claimed. Isakov does not disclose wherein the dielectric particles comprise silicon carbide particles.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing with embedded dielectric particles for differential permeability ([0044]), Fedynyshyn teaches wherein the dielectric particles comprise silicon carbide particles ([0092]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method of Isakov to use silicon carbide particles for the dielectric particles because [0044] [0092] of Fednyshyn teaches that silicon carbide particles are known dielectric particles for use in additive manufacturing with embedded dielectric particles for differential permeability.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isakov ("3D printed anisotropic dielectric composite with meta-material features", MATERIALS & DESIGN, ELSEVIER, AMSTERDAM, NL, vol. 93, 5 January 2016 (2016-01-05), pages 423-430, XP029394866, ISSN: 0264-1275) in view of Bhatt (US 2021/02373642), optionally Formlabs (The Ultimate Guide to Rapid Prototyping for Product Development), and optionally Hoyt (US 2015/0048209) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Coleman (US 2021/0373582).
Regarding claim 24, Isakov as modified teaches a method substantially as claimed. Isakov does not disclose wherein the dielectric particles comprise glass microspheres.
However, in the same field of endeavor of incorporating dielectric particles in a polymer matrix for the sake of radiation absorption ([0253]), Coleman teaches wherein the dielectric particles comprise glass microspheres ([0253]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method of Isakov to use glass microspheres for the dielectric particles because [0253] of Coleman teaches that glass microspheres are known dielectric particles for embedding in a polymer matrix for radiation absorption.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Isakov is not explicit in teaching the claimed reiterated process before final additive manufacturing, that experimentation and simulation as disclosed in Isakov is insufficient. This argument is not persuasive as reiterated testing and simulation are longstanding practices for developing products with additive manufacturing (Formlabs p. 2-3). Isakov’s teaching to experiment and simulate are understood to have been teaching reiteration. To the extent there is any deficiency, Formlabs’ teachings provide a rationale for reiteration.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are based on this unpersuasive argument and are similarly unpersuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fedynshyn (US 11,845,219) teaches subject matter similar to Fedynshyn (US 2020/0353682), cited above. Coleman (US 11,681,305) teaches subject matter similar to Coleman (US 2021/0373582), cited above.
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 NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC whose telephone number is (571)272-6131. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC/ Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/EMMANUEL S LUK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights