DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 17 November 2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04 December 2025 has been considered. Due to a correction to the publication date of NPL Citation No. 2 of the 04 December 2025 IDS, as compared to this same publication listed as NPL Citation No. 14 of the 12 April 2024 IDS and as evidenced by NPL Citation No. 1 of the 04 December 2025 IDS, consideration of the 12 April 2024 IDS has been amended in the manner set forth herewith.
Applicant is reminded of the duty under 37 CFR 1.56(a) to disclose information material to patentability, such as (a) Office Actions and prior art related to the claimed invention which have been cited during prosecution of any related filings, (b) prior foreign or domestic filings by Applicant(s) which are related to the claimed or disclosed invention and which constitute prior art, (c) related brochures, dissertations, or other research publications, including that which has been authored by one or more inventors listed under this application or by other individuals under which or along which one or more inventors may have been working, and (d) any other relevant prior art Applicant may be aware of, including since the filing of any previous information disclosure statement (IDS).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and to address the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections set forth below.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The Ock publication cited under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejections below is considered to be among the closest prior art of record, disclosing each of the infusing, directing, and forming steps of claim 1 in its current form, in addition to a number of dependent claim recitations that are similarly disclosed or obvious as set forth below. However, Ock is directed explicitly to the formation of tissue model devices which comprise wells, for example as pertaining to cell culture and tissue engineering (title and abstract, vi, etc.). Although the formation of microcellular bubbles is disclosed, no disclosure is made of microcellular bubbles formed specifically to reduce bending strength so as to configure the affected area as a live hinge in the manner recited by instant claim 13, nor does a reasonable combination of prior art exist of record that would otherwise render obvious this combination of claim features.
Response to Remarks
Remarks submitted 17 November 2025 which are applicable to rejections below are addressed in succession as follows:
Rejection 1: At Rem. 8-10, it is stated that Ock’s page 35 description of cone-shaped wells does not appear to disclose the forming step added to claim 1 by the 17 November 2025 amendment, in particular due to Ock’s Figure 3-5 (a) depiction of such a well that “opens at the surface” (Rem. 9), which is different than what is claimed as evidenced by Figure 4 of the present application depicting a melted surface formed above the microcellular bubbles (Rem. 9).
It is first noted that it is unclear how to construe the Rem. 9 allegation that Ock’s Figure 3-5 (a) well “opens at the surface”, in particular whether it is being alleged that Ock’s Figure 3-5 (a) well as a whole is open at the surface thereof, whether some aspect of the well (e.g. microcellular bubbles thereof) are open at the surface thereof, etc.
It is further noted that as opposed to Ock’s Fig. 3-5 (a) depiction which is provided with a relatively large 1 mm scale at the bottom right-hand corner thereof, the scale of Applicant’s Fig. 4 is unspecified. It is in turn unclear exactly how Applicant’s Fig. 4 compares to Ock’s Fig. 3-5 (a), including for example whether Applicant’s Fig. 4 is significantly magnified relative thereto.
Further, Ock goes on in Fig. 3-5 (d) to depict a much smaller scale more closely resembling Applicant’s Fig. 4 in that a smooth surface region resembling that of Fig. 4 shows signs of being melted before resolidifying over an underlying foamed region in the same manner as described by the instant specification at p. 12 [0049] for Fig. 4. A similar smooth surface over an underlying foamed region appears also in Ock at Fig. 5-5 (a)-(d), with Fig. 5-5 (d) appearing to be slightly larger in scale than but otherwise closely resembling Applicant’s Fig. 4.
Notably also for Ock’s Fig. 5-5, an explicit description is made from the 4th to 3rd to last lines of p. 84 that use of laser foaming in the manner disclosed provides a result “indicating that the surface of the laser processed region may be molten during the foaming process”, which aligns explicitly with the 17 November 2025 amendment pertaining to such melting. Although Ock states in the previous sentence at p. 84 that “the top surface of the foamed region has an open cell structure”, Applicant also describes such an open celled structure in addition to surface holes caused from escaping gas (spec. p. 12 [0050]).
It is in turn not believed that the claimed formation of a melted surface in fact distinguishes over what Ock depicts and describes explicitly, and/or over what Ock’s disclosure at least strongly suggests to be an inherent result of Ock’s treatment of the same claimed gas-infused thermoplastic member by the same claimed energy beam (see MPEP § 2112(I-III) as relevant in this regard).
Rejection 2: At Rem. 11, it is indicated that the publication cited under Rejection 2 was in fact made publicly available less than one year prior to the instant provisional filing. This is found persuasive as evidenced by the 04 December 2025 IDS filing.
Upon review of the above responses, Applicant’s Representative is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly for further clarification on any outstanding issues, to discuss potential claim amendments that might help to advance prosecution, and/or to discuss what Applicant believes to be the crux of the claimed and/or disclosed invention as it is believed to distinguish over the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement for containing subject matter not described in the specification so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In particular:
While the specification at [0039] on p. 9 provides that “the thickness of the melted portion may be directly proportional to the power of the energy beam 108”, the specification as originally filed does not fully support the 17 November 2025 amendment to claim 1 specifying a thickness of the melted surface being based “at least in part” on the power of the energy beam. This phrase does not appear in the specification and implies that the thickness may be based on something other than the power of the energy beam. Since no disclosure is made of the thickness being based on any parameter other than the power of the energy beam, there is not believed to be support for this claimed implication.
While the specification describes a live hinge at p. 3 [0012] and p. 9 [0040], whereby the “selected portion”, as a whole, is configured as a live hinge, the specification as originally filed does not support the 17 November 2025 amendment to claim 13 specifying the selected portion as a “first selected portion”, with bubbles in “a second selected portion” reducing bending strength thereof “to configure selected portion as a live hinge”. No disclosure is made of first and second selected portions, let alone those configured in the manner claimed.
While the specification describes Fig. 7A-C illustrations of patterns generated by directing an energy beam “into” thermoplastic materials (p. 6 [0032]), the specification as originally filed does not support the new claim 21 language added 17 November 2025 that specifies directing the energy beam “in a pattern”. This language does not appear, and is not otherwise clearly implied by the specification as originally filed.
While the specification describes use of a laser engraver to direct energy into a gas-infused thermoplastic to form microcellular bubbles (p. 5 [0026], [0048] at p. 11), the specification as originally filed does not support the new claim 21 language added 17 November 2025 that specifies that the bubbles, themselves, “form an engraving”, let alone one that is “based at least in part” on the claimed pattern. This language does not appear, and is not otherwise clearly implied by the specification as originally filed.
Absent persuasive argument contesting these issues, appropriate correction by amendment is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the 12 April 2024 IDS Citation No. 17 to Ock (Development of a Laser Foaming Process for High Throughput Three-dimensional Tissue Model Devices, Doctor of Philosophy, The University of Texas at Austin, August 2017, 146 pages).
As to claim 1, Ock teaches a method comprising each of the claimed steps of infusing, transmitting, and forming as set forth for example at Pages 27 and 29, in addition to Figs. 3-5 (a)-(d), Figs. 5-5 (a)-(d), and their corresponding description. Note the disclosed sub-surface porous structure (vii, line 8) formed at a depth within the disclosed member, in addition to the surface melting described explicitly from the 4th to 3rd to last lines of Page 84. As further evidence of the claimed melting, note the smooth surface region of Fig. 3-5 (d) in particular, in addition to and Figs. 5-5 (a)-(d), each of which depict Applicant’s same Fig. 4 signs of being melted before resolidifying over an underlying foamed region (as described by the instant specification at p. 12 [0049]). Note also Fig. 5-5 (d) which bears striking resemblance, in apparently larger scale, to Applicant’s Fig. 4. The claimed recitation pertaining to melted surface thickness based at least in part on energy beam power is not believed to distinguish over Ock, not only due to this being depicted for example in at least Fig. 5-9 (b) as compared with Fig. 5-9 (a), but also due to this pertaining to an apparently inherent characteristic (MPEP § 2112(I-III)), with power recognized explicitly as impacting the treated material and article in a manner which otherwise implies this claimed relationship (see, for example, the pp. 27, 34, 37, 89, etc. description not only of laser power impacting well depth, volume, and diameter, but also of the heating induced thereby). See also the remainder of Ock’s disclosure as relevant.
Ock’s above method also comprises the claim 3 and claim 5 radiation having a wavelength falling into the claim 3 range (see the above citations), comprises the claim 4 pulses (Table 5-1), comprises diameters falling into the claim 6 range (vii, Fig. 3-5, page 41, etc.), comprises the claim 7 extension throughout the claimed range of depths (see at least Figs. 3-5, 3-6, 4-5, etc. and their corresponding description), comprises the claim 8-9 converging beam and focusing (see the page 9 focal zone, in addition for example to Fig. 4-5 as relevant) in addition to the claim 8 consideration of attenuation (pages 56-57, 59, 62-63, etc.), comprises the claim 10 scanning (note the above page 27,29 use of a positioning stage, in addition for example to the page 79 movement thereof to form a desired pattern), comprises at least one of the claim 11 materials (see the above citations), comprises a thickness falling into the claim 12 range (page 28, 37, 62, etc.), comprises the claim 14 unselected portion (see the above citations), and comprises the claim 21 patterning (Fig. 3-4 (b), p. 93) and formation of what may be construed as an engraving (note the resulting depression as represented for example by Fig. 3-4 (a), in addition to the corresponding description of well formation).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ock as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of either Miller et al. (US 9,481,774) or Nadella et al. (US 10,301,446).
Ock teaches the claim 2 use of carbon dioxide, but only discloses exemplary pressures falling below the claimed range (see at least the above citations). However, for related techniques also in which a polymer member is subjected to gas infusion for subsequent selective foaming, each of Miller and Nadella demonstrates that various pressures may be utilized, some of which include those disclosed by Ock, based for example on the polymer material being utilized and/or other variables (see, for example, Miller at least at 9:29 and 18:40, in addition to Nadella at least at 6:13-20). See also MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding obviousness of overlapping or encompassing ranges, in addition to MPEP2144.05(II) regarding routine optimization, as applicable. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from either Miller or Nadella into Ock as providing an art-recognized suitable and/or interchangeable gas pressure range based on the material being utilized and/or intended impact thereof, and/or to increase or improve industrial applicability of Ock’s disclosure to the additional materials, and associated infusion pressures disclosed by these references.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Atul P. Khare whose telephone number is (571)270-7608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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 A. Johnson can be reached at (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 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.
/Atul P. Khare/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742