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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 21-29) in the reply filed on 10/27/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ohio State Innovation Foundation (WO 2021/062411 A1; herein after “Ohio State”, as provided by the Applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claim 21, Ohio State teaches a printhead capable of fabricating multilayered micro and nanostructures (see abstract; Figs. 1 – 28; page 4, line 4-10 discloses aligned micro- and nanostructured produced by chaotic printing, additionally see page 13 lines 5 to page 30 lines 30) , comprising a printhead (“KSM-printhead”) in a plurality of arrangements (see Figure 28) comprising: a) a flow distributor with at least two inlet ports (see Fig 28); b) a static mixer in a plurality of arrangements comprising at least one mixing element (Fig 28 taken below shows a static mixer), which enables the creation of multilayered patterns produced by chaotic advection (see page 4 lines 5-10; Fig. 13 D is a photo showing actual continuous chaotic printing in operation; see also page 7 lines 20 - 30);
c) a container tube (“extrusion tube”) for the static mixer comprising a 0 or more side inlet ports which enables the production of continuous filaments with varying internal radial or axial structures (see page 50 lines 25-30 discloses having KSM element within extrusion tube; also see Fig. 28 the tube container includes zero ports on the side);
PNG
media_image1.png
1045
947
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 28A taken from Ohio State, showing flow distributor, lid, helical blade, and print head on the bottom (nozzle tip).
d) a lid containing at least two inlet ports to enable the production of continuous filaments with varying longitudinal or cross-sectional microstructure (page 7 line 16 recites “The lid can be adapted to inject several inks simultaneously.”; Fig. 28 lid on the top includes two ports for ink A and B supply); and e) a printhead nozzle to produce filaments with different cross-sectional shapes and dimensions (Fig 28 at the bottom include nozzle tip to produce fibers/filament with different cross-sectional shapes and dimension as the nozzle or tip can use different extrusion dies as in Figs. 28B-28E, see pg. 13, lines 5-25).
As for claim 22, Ohio State further teaches wherein the tube container further comprises interchangeable sections allowing to vary configurations for the production of continuous filaments with changing internal structure (see page 50 lines 25-30 recites including different KSM elements within the tube container and these elements are interchangeable, it is noted that the ends of the printhead is also interchangeable as shown on Fig 28B-E).
As for claim 23, Ohio State further teaches wherein the static mixer comprises helical elements with various configurations (see page 49, lines 4-20 which recites “The mixing section contains KSM, a static mixer configuration that includes a serial arrangement of n number of helical element contained in a tubular pipe, which each rotated 90o with respect to the previous one (Figs. 13B, 13C).”.
As for claim 24, Ohio State further teaches wherein each helical element is rotated between 0o and 90o with respect to a previous helical element (see page 49, lines 4-20 which recites “The mixing section contains KSM, a static mixer configuration that includes a serial arrangement of n number of helical element contained in a tubular pipe, which each rotated 90o with respect to the previous one (Figs. 13B, 13C).”.
As for claim 25, Ohio State further teaches wherein the static mixer is a Kenics static mixer (KSM), or a SMX static mixer, or modified SMX (mSMX) static mixer, or a Ross static mixer, or any combination of the mixing elements of these static mixers, which enables the generation of plurality of distinct inner patterns or architectures depending on the configuration and number of static mixers selected (page 49, lines 4-20 which recites “The mixing section contains KSM, a static mixer configuration that includes a serial arrangement of n number of helical element contained in a tubular pipe, which each rotated 90o with respect to the previous one (Figs. 13B, 13C).”; additionally see Fig. 28) .
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 27 -28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Ohio State Innovation Foundation (WO 2021/062411 A1; herein after “Ohio State”) in view of Tamayol et al. (US 2024/0165879 A1, with provisional filing date of March, 26, 2021).
Regarding claims 27 - 28, Ohio State teach all the limitations to the claim invention as discussed above, however, fail to teach wherein the inlet port at the container tube or the lid are adapted with co-axial inlet for coextruding an additional ink, which enables the generation of layers line with a secondary ink; wherein the printhead nozzle includes at least one co-axial inlet port configured to coextrude an additional material concentrically with a primary material, wherein the additional material is configured to interact with the primary material during or after extrusion.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to static mixers and printing, Tamayol et al. teach wherein the inlet port at the container tube or the lid are adapted with co-axial inlet for coextruding an additional ink, which enables the generation of layers line with a secondary ink; wherein the printhead nozzle includes at least one co-axial inlet port configured to coextrude an additional material concentrically with a primary material, wherein the additional material is configured to interact with the primary material during or after extrusion (Tamayol et al. [0048] recites “Flow in the sheath channel in the sleeve 40 can also be controlled independently through an inlet 42. The flowrates and positioning of the fiber deposition can also be controlled simply by integrating the multicompartmental bioprinting system with various printers including stationary, handheld, and robotic arm printers. The system 10 can deposit the fibers and stack them directly on surfaces, or spin the fiber in crosslinking bath to form individual multicompartmental fibers”).
Tamayol et al. further teach wherein the inlet port(s) at the container tube or the lid are adapted with a co-axial inlet for coextruding an additional ink, which enables the generation of layers lined with a secondary ink (see Fig 1A-1B item 42, Fig. 1G and Fig. 5; [0094]). It would have neem obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention effectively filed to further modify the system including printhead as taught by Ohio State with further including inlet (s) for tube container, as suggested by Tamayol et al., for the benefit of forming individual multicompartmental fiber’s structure.
Claim(s) 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohio State Innovation
Foundation (WO 2021/062411 A1; herein after “Ohio State”) in view of FRONTIER BIO CORPORATION (WO 2019/178086 A1; herein after Frontier Corp).
As for claim 29, Ohio State teaches using the printhead for electrospinning (see page 9 lines 25-30), however, fails to explicitly teach wherein the printhead nozzle is made by or coated with a conductive material, which enables the adaptation to an electrospinning or electro writing set up.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to printhead, Frontier Corp teaches wherein the printhead nozzle is made by or coated with a conductive material, which enables the adaptation to an electrospinning or electro-writing set up (see “The printhead 4, consists of a main body 9, one or more input connections 10, one or more channels 11 that merge into a single reservoir 12, an electrical connector 13, and a conductive substrate 14 which conducts the high voltage to the liquid or to a conductive surface that is in contact with the liquid.)
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the applicants in invention to have modified the printhead nozzle as taught by Ohio state with coated with conductive material, as suggested by Frontier Corp., for the benefit of electrospinning efficiently desired material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Ohio State Innovation Foundation (WO 2021/062411 A1; herein after “Ohio State”) in view of Tamayol et al. (US 2024/0165879 A1, with provisional filing date of March, 26, 2021) The printhead according to claim 21, wherein the side inlet port(s) outfall at different heights port is positioned along the wall of the container tube at a selected axial position relative to the static mixing elements such that material introduced through the side inlet port enters the static mixer downstream of at least one mixing element and upstream of at least another mixing element, thereby determining the number of mixing elements through which the introduced material flows and controlling the resulting internal lamellar subdivision of the extruded filament.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Claim(s) 21 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ohio State Innovation Foundation (WO 2021/062411 A1; herein after “Ohio State”, as provided by the Applicant’s IDS), the Applicant argued Ohio State does not describe claimed features of a printhead for fabricating multilayered micro and nanostructures comprising a printhead in a plurality of arrangements comprising: a printhead in a plurality of arrangements comprising: (a) a flow distributor with at least two inlet ports; (b) a static mixer in a plurality of arrangements comprising at least one mixing element, which enables the creation of multilayered patterns produced by chaotic advection; (c) a container tube for the static mixer comprising a 0 or more side inlet ports which enables the production of continuous filament with varying internal radial or axial structures; (d) a lid containing at least two inlets ports to enable the production of continuous filaments with varying longitudinal or cross-sectional microstructure; and ( e) a printhead nozzle to produce filaments with different cross-sectional shapes and dimensions. It was mainly argued that Ohio State is pertaining to dual-inlet configuration involving a permanent material and a fugitive material to generate void structures. In contrast, claim 21 is not limited to such dual inlet-configuration nor to the use of a fugitive material. Claim 21 pertains to broader range of inlet configuration, including multiple inlet streams and different material combinations, enabling the generation of a wider variety of internal microarchitectures.
Examiner’s response: The Examiner notes that claim as written is broader than as argued. Claim 21 does not yet include different material combination as claimed, however, only recites a lid containing at least two inlet ports and printhead nozzle to produce filaments with different cross-sectional shapes and dimensions. It is noted that upon further review of the applied reference, Ohio State teaches a printhead capable of fabricating multilayered micro and nanostructures (see abstract; Figs. 1 – 28; page 4, line 4-10 discloses aligned micro- and nanostructured produced by chaotic printing, additionally see page 13 lines 5 to page 30 lines 30) , comprising a printhead (“KSM-printhead”) in a plurality of arrangements (see Figure 28) comprising: a) a flow distributor with at least two inlet ports (see Fig 28); b) a static mixer in a plurality of arrangements comprising at least one mixing element (Fig 28 taken below shows a static mixer), which enables the creation of multilayered patterns produced by chaotic advection (see page 4 lines 5-10; Fig. 13 D is a photo showing actual continuous chaotic printing in operation; see also page 7 lines 20 - 30);
c) a container tube (“extrusion tube”) for the static mixer comprising a 0 or more side inlet ports which enables the production of continuous filaments with varying internal radial or axial structures (see page 50 lines 25-30 discloses having KSM element within extrusion tube; also see Fig. 28 the tube container includes zero ports on the side); d) a lid containing at least two inlet ports to enable the production of continuous filaments with varying longitudinal or cross-sectional microstructure (page 7 line 16 recites “The lid can be adapted to inject several inks simultaneously.”; Fig. 28 lid on the top includes two ports for ink A and B supply); and e) a printhead nozzle to produce filaments with different cross-sectional shapes and dimensions (Fig 28 at the bottom include nozzle tip to produce fibers/filament with different cross-sectional shapes and dimension as the nozzle or tip can use different extrusion dies as in Figs. 28B-28E, see pg. 13, lines 5-25). Ohio State specifically discloses the lid having two ports (Fig 28) for supplying ink A, and ink B, which can be either similar or different materials. Therefore, claim rejection is maintained.
Applicant argued that claim 21 defines printhead architecture that allows spatial control over material introduction along the mixing path through side ports on the container tube.
Examiner’s response: Applicant’s arguments are considered, however, are not found persuasive since claim 21 recites that the “container tube for the static mixer comprising a 0 or more side inlet ports which enables the production of continuous filaments with varying internal radial or axial structures”. Claim 21 is broader than argued as claim does not require a side port as written. Applicant is urged to amend claim appropriate, which would require further search in order to determine patentability.
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 NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -5:00 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, 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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights