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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: page 10, example 5, line 3 recites that “In section b) an arrangement without two side inlets and with two holes” should be re-written -- In section b) an arrangement with two side inlets and with two holes--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 26, line 2 recites “(flowing into a specific static mixing element)” and since this limitation is within the parenthesis, claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether this limitation is required or optional.
Regarding claim 28, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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) 26 -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 26 - 28, Ohio State teach all the limitations to the claim invention as discussed above, however, fail to teach wherein the side inlet port(s) outfall at different heights of the container tube (flowing into a specific static mixing element), which enables the generation of a plurality of distinct inner patterns with varying layer thickness, depending on the side inlet port position(s).
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to static mixers and printing, Tamayol et al. teach having an static mixer and side inlet port on the container tube, which enables the generation of a plurality of distinct inner patterns with varying layer thickness as claimed (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]); wherein the printhead nozzle includes at least one co-axial inlet port for coextruding an additional ink or material and capable of handling a crosslinking agent (Fig 1A-1B item 42, Fig. 1G and Fig. 5; [0094]). Though Tamayol et al. fail to include plurality of inlet[s] as claimed, however, mere duplication of parts (such as having plurality of inlets), would have been obvious modification to the system, for providing similar functional benefit of adding additional material for forming multicompartmental fibers.
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 electrowriting 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2025/0360566 A1; US 2024/0351277 A1; US 2024/0253309 A1; US 2020/0139624 A1; US 2014/0079841 A1.
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