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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the communication filed on 11/18/2025. Currently claims 1-20 are pending in the application; with claims 9-20 withdrawn from consideration.
ELECTION / RESTRICTION
Applicant's election of Group I, claims 1-8, with traverse, drawn to a method in the reply filed on 11/18/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that the claims are directed to a single inventive concept. The argument is not persuasive and does not particularly dispute either the statements of distinctness or burden on the examiner. As discussed in the restriction requirement, the inventions are classified in different areas and the search required for group I, is not required for group II, and vice versa. Therefore, search and examination of the entire application cannot be conducted without serious burden and the restriction as indicated is proper. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 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, 3, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.102 as being anticipated over Meier et al. (Meier, Tobias et al., "Programmable and self-demolding micro-structured molds fabricated from shape-memory polymers", Journal of Micro mechanics and Microengineering, 19 May 2015, Vol. 25, Pages 1-8), hereafter, referred to as “Meier”.
Regarding claim 1, Meier teaches a mold comprising: a tube structure (equivalent to a three-dimensional structure) comprising a shape memory polymer with shape changing capability, wherein the tube structure has a cavity that is defined by embossed features of the mold and is filled with epoxy for being casted, is characterized as exhibiting a restorable shape transition in response to heating (equivalent to stimulus) to a shape transition temperature, and releases an epoxy rod in response to heating (abstract; page 1, right column-page 2, left column; page 3, left column; page 4; right column; page 6, right column, page 7, left column; and Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Meier teaches a mold, wherein the shape changing material is a shape memory polymer material (abstract; page 1, right column-page 2, left column).
Regarding claim 8, Meier teaches in Fig. 4, a mold, wherein a surface of the cavity has a predefined pattern of features.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 103 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made 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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Meier et al. (Meier, Tobias et al., "Programmable and self-demolding micro-structured molds fabricated from shape-memory polymers", Journal of Micro mechanics and Microengineering, 19 May 2015, Vol. 25, Pages 1-8), in view of Pei et al. (Pei, Zhiqiang et al.: "Mouldable liquid-crystalline elastomer actuators with exchangeable covalent bonds", Nature materials, 01 December 2013 (online published date), Vol. 13, Pages 36-41), hereafter, referred to as “Pei”.
Regarding claim 2, Meier teaches a mold comprising: a three-dimensional tube structure comprising a shape memory polymer with shape changing capability (abstract; page 1, right column-page 2, left column). But Meier fails to explicitly teach that the shape changing material is a liquid crystal elastomer mesogen material. However, Pei teaches the use of Liquid Crystal Elastomers (LCE) for converting external stimuli into mechanical actuation by converting the LCEs to exchangeable links (xLCEs). Pei teaches in Fig. 1b, the synthesis of the xLCE network through the reaction between an epoxy-terminated biphenyl mesogen and the spacer, in 1:1 molar ratio. Pei also teaches that the xLCEs have excellent and diverse shape-memory effect and capable of reversible shape change (page 38, left column). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Pei, and substitute the shape memory polymers, with that of xLCEs (equivalent to liquid crystal elastomer mesogen material), because it would provide excellent and diverse shape-memory effect and capable of reversible shape change (KSR Rationale B, MPEP 2143), and obtain predictable results.
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Meier et al. (Meier, Tobias et al., "Programmable and self-demolding micro-structured molds fabricated from shape-memory polymers", Journal of Micro mechanics and Microengineering, 19 May 2015, Vol. 25, Pages 1-8), in view of Wynne et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0080581 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Wynne”.
Regarding claim 4, Meier teaches a mold comprising: a three-dimensional tube structure comprising a shape memory polymer with shape changing capability (abstract; page 1, right column-page 2, left column). But Meier fails to explicitly teach that the shape changing material is a hydrogel. However, Wynne teaches that parts are additively manufactured with a structure that changes over time when exposed to an activation stimulus. The stimulus may be, for example. heat, cooling, light, or electricity. Wynne also teaches that a lattice structure has active members that can self-transform when exposed to a stimulus, causing the part to change shape. Wynne further teaches using shape memory alloys and polymers or other "smart" materials (e.g., composites, hydrogels) in which the materials self-transform in response to a stimulus (para. [0004]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Pei, and substitute the shape memory polymers, with hydrogels, because it would allow "smart" materials (hydrogels) in which the materials self-transform in response to a stimulus (KSR Rationale B, MPEP 2143), and obtain predictable results.
Claim 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Meier et al. (Meier, Tobias et al., "Programmable and self-demolding micro-structured molds fabricated from shape-memory polymers", Journal of Micro mechanics and Microengineering, 19 May 2015, Vol. 25, Pages 1-8), in view of Kindt-Larsen et al. (US Patent Number 5,849,209), hereafter, referred to as “Kindt-Larsen”.
Regarding claim 5, Meier teaches a mold comprising: a three-dimensional tube structure comprising a shape memory polymer with shape changing capability (abstract; page 1, right column-page 2, left column). But Meier fails to explicitly teach the shape changing mold material includes an additive configured to inhibit adherence of the castable material to a surface of the cavity. However, Kindt-Larsen teaches a novel polymeric formulation for a mold material containing an internal mold release additive which assists in the release of the molded component from an internal mold wetting agent which enhances the interfacial wetting between the reactive monomer mix and the mold surfaces, thereby reducing the number of defects formed on the molded product article (column 1, lines 9-18). Kindt-Larsen also teaches that the mold comprises a molding resinous thermoplastic polymer admixed with a mold release agent such as waxes, soaps and oils in mold releasing effective amounts (column 4, lines 7-10). Kindt-Larsen further teaches that the additives used are materials that are known or commercially available. They are also known release agents. Preferred additives are silicones, amide waxes, fatty acids, polyethylene and propylene waxes, mineral wax, oxidized waxes and the like (column 9, lines 41-45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Kindt-Larsen, and combine the use of additive such as release agents in the shape memory polymers, because it would allow the shape changing mold material to inhibit adherence of the castable material to a surface of the cavity (KSR Rationale A, MPEP 2143).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Meier et al. (Meier, Tobias et al., "Programmable and self-demolding micro-structured molds fabricated from shape-memory polymers", Journal of Micro mechanics and Microengineering, 19 May 2015, Vol. 25, Pages 1-8), in view of Majidi et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0098461 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Majidi”.
Regarding claims 6-7, Meier teaches a mold comprising: a three-dimensional tube structure comprising a shape memory polymer with shape changing capability (abstract; page 1, right column-page 2, left column). But Meier fails to explicitly teach the changing material includes an additive configured to cause a shape change of the three-dimensional structure in response to the stimulus, configured to cause a shape change of the three-dimensional structure in response to the stimulus, the additive being a magnetic filing, a piezoelectric ceramic material, or a metal. However, Majidi teaches a polymer composite having shape-morphing capabilities where the composite comprises a liquid crystal elastomer and liquid metal inclusions to improve thermal and/or electrical conductivity. The liquid metal inclusions are metals such as Gallium, alloys of Gallium, eutectic alloys, and other metals that have low melting points. The composite is soft and stretchable, while still retaining the shape-morphing characteristics of the liquid crystal elastomer (abstract). Majidi also teaches that the liquid metal inclusions do not interfere with the ability of the LCE to change shape and perform mechanical work in response to external stimuli (para. [0006]). Majidi further teaches that the resulting composite is capable of Joule heated actuation with sufficient thermal conductivity to function in digital circuitry. Shape-morphing in the absence of an external load can be progr3lllllled into the LCE-LM composite through photoinitiated crosslinking to enable it to reversibly transition between pre-programmed morphologies through electrical or thermal stimulation (para. [0007]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Majidi, and combine the use of additive such as liquid metal in the shape memory polymers, because it would allow the polymer to change shape and perform mechanical work in response to external stimuli with joule heated actuation, in addition to improving thermal and/or electrical conductivity required for the mold (KSR Rationale A, MPEP 2143).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M AMEEN whose telephone number is (469) 295 9214. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9.00 am to 6.00 pm (Central Time).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on (571) 272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD M AMEEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights