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 with traverse of (claims 1-4 and 7-12) in the reply filed on (9 – 3 – 2025) is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Group I, i.e. various fillers and their selection would be routine and predictable to those in the art. While Group II laser beams vs election beams and other energy flow-based devices, are functionally equivalent and provide no difference in objective, outcome or inventive principle. With respect to Group III the specification at paragraph ([0007]) explicitly presents these options using the term "alternatively," signaling that they are considered functionally equivalent by the inventors. Next for Group IV the choice between different precursors, different fillers, or different filler loadings would be routine for a person skilled in the art and driven primarily by performance tuning or materials availability, not by any distinct or unpredictable inventive concept. These combinations are functionally related and materially compatible. Finally for Group V these two routes are commonly used and often viewed as functionally complementary or interchangeable in advanced manufacturing. Their selection depends on fabrication constraints or precision requirements, not on divergent inventive concepts. Highlighting, that applicant has admitted on record that the aforementioned Groups I – V either provide alternatives that are functionally equivalent and provide no difference in objective, outcome with no inventive principle or would be routine for a person skilled in the art and driven primarily by performance tuning or materials availability, not by any distinct or unpredictable inventive concept. As such, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. As they are found to no contain any inventive concepts thus are found to not help move prosecution forward due to an equivalent alternative been discussed in the species that have been elected. Accordingly, claim(s) 5 – 6 & 13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on (9 – 3 – 2025).
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.
Claim(s) 1 & 8 – 12 is/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 8 recites the limitation "the particle size" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is recommended that claim 7 be made dependent on claim 3. For the purposes of providing an antecedent basis for “particles”.
Claim(s) 9 recites the limitation " the selected deformation" in line(s) 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It should read “the selected level of deformation” for the purposes of claim consistency.
Claim(s) 10 recites the limitation "..the 3D printing is…" in line(s) 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It should read “the printing a first structure and the printing a second structure are…” for the purposes of claim consistency.
Claim(s) 11 – 12 recites the limitation "the structure" in line(s) 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It should be distinguished if “the structure” of claims 11 – 12 is in reference to the sufficient antecedent basis of “the first structure”, “the second structure” or “the first structure” and/or “the second structure” for the purpose of claim consistency. For the purposes of examination, it will be understood to mean “the first structure” and/or “the second structure”.
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.
A.) Claim(s) 1 – 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 20190030783 A1, hereinafter Lu) in view of Lu et al. (US 20190381725 A1, hereinafter Lu II)Regarding claim 1,
A method of in situ 4D printing of high-temperature materials comprising:
printing a first structure of a first material comprising a first coefficient of thermal expansion and a first thermal shrinkage ratio;
printing a second structure of a second material at least partially disposed on the first structure of the first material, having a second coefficient of thermal expansion and a second thermal shrinkage ratio different from the first coefficient of expansion and a first thermal shrinkage ratio;
heating a composite of the first structure and the second structure wherein a difference between the first and second coefficients of thermal expansion or between the first and second thermal shrinkage ratios creates an interface stress to cause a selected level of deformation.
Lu teaches the following:
& b.) ([0010]) teaches a method of constructing a 4D-printed ceramic object, the method comprising extruding inks including particles and polymeric ceramic precursors through a nozzle to deposit the inks on a heating plate, whereby a 3D-printed elastomeric object is formed on the heating plate.
(Abstract) teaches folding the 3D-printed elastomeric object into a complex structure to form a 4D-printed pre-strained elastomeric object and converting the 4D-printed elastomeric object into the 4D-printed ceramic object. ([0020]) teaches that the heating temperature of polymer-to-ceramic transformation is 400 °C. to 2000 °C. (Claim 18) teaches wherein during the polymer-to-ceramic transformation the pre-strain is programmed by robotics or shape memory alloy or thermal expansion or relaxation of residual stress or laser cutting of ligaments or combinations thereof. As such, the use of thermal expansion as a means to determine the heating of the a composite such that a difference between coefficients of thermal expansion ratios creates an interface stress to cause a selected level of deformation.
Regarding Claim 1, Lu is silent on the first material being different than the second material. In analogous art for a system and method of constructing a 4D-printed ceramic object, (Abstract), Lu II suggests details regarding the inks comprising a different composition, and in this regard, Lu II teaches the following:
& b.) ([0062]) teaches that for the purposes of demonstrating the workings of the invention, an example is provided that includes inks with two different weight percentages of nanoparticles. ([0050]) teaches that it will be understood that the nanoparticles may also include other variants, such as but not limited to, calcium oxide particles, aluminium oxide particles, titanium dioxide particles, indium oxide particles, zinc oxide particles, silicon dioxide particles, aluminium nitride particles, calcium silicate particles, silicon carbide particles, polymeric particles, metallic particles, carbon black particles, graphene particles, graphite particles, diamond particles, other refractory materials or any combination of the particles listed above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing and constructing a 4D-printed ceramic object includes extruding inks including particles and polymeric ceramic precursors through a nozzle to deposit the inks on a heating plate, of Lu. By modifying the inks to comprise a first material being different than the second material, as taught by Lu. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a variety of inks with two different weight percentages of nanoparticles and the use of other varieties, ([0050]). Additionally, the use of a known materials (i.e. a combination and other varieties of nanoparticles) in a known environment, namely a 4D-printed ceramic object provides for the recitation of known material in the art. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the first and second structures may be different precursor materials.
Lu teaches the following:
([0053]) teaches that it will be understood that the polymeric ceramic precursors may be polysiloxanes, polysilsesquioxanes, polycarbosiloxanes, polycarbosilanes, polysilylcarbodiimides, polysilsesquicarbodiimides, polysilazanes, polysilsesquiazanes or any combination of the above. As such, the use of the first and second structures may be different precursor materials is understood to be disclosed.
Regarding Claim 2, Lu is silent on the first material being different than the second material. In analogous art for a system and method of constructing a 4D-printed ceramic object, (Abstract), Lu II suggests details regarding the inks comprising a different composition, and in this regard, Lu II teaches the following:
([0047]) teaches that the stretchability of PDMS allows for the creation of complex structures. However, it will be understood that the polymeric ceramic precursors may also include polysiloxanes, polysilsesquioxanes, polycarbosiloxane, polycarbosilanes, polysilylcarbodiimides, polysilsesquicarbodiimides, polysilazanes, polysilsesquiazanes or any combination of the above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing and constructing a 4D-printed ceramic object includes extruding inks including particles and polymeric ceramic precursors through a nozzle to deposit the inks on a heating plate, of Lu. By modifying the composition to include that the first and second structures may be different precursor materials, as taught by Lu II. Highlighting, the use of a known materials (i.e. a combination and other varieties of precursor materials) in a known environment, namely a 4D-printed ceramic object provides for the recitation of known material in the art. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the first and second materials are selected from polymeric precursors, cellulose, hydrogels, ceramic particles, metal particles, glass particles, diamond particles or mixtures thereof.
Lu teaches the following:
([0047]) teaches that the particles (NPs) may also be calcium oxide particles, aluminium oxide particles, titanium dioxide particles, indium oxide particles, zinc oxide particles, silicon dioxide particles, aluminium nitride particles, calcium silicate particles, silicon carbide particles, polymeric particles, metallic particles, carbon black particles, graphene particles, graphite particles, diamond particles, other refractory materials or any combination of the particles listed above.
Regarding Claim 3, Lu is silent on the first material being different than the second material. In analogous art for a system and method of constructing a 4D-printed ceramic object, (Abstract), Lu II suggests details regarding the inks comprising a different composition, and in this regard, Lu II teaches the following:
([0050]) teaches that it will be understood that the nanoparticles may also include other variants, such as but not limited to, calcium oxide particles, aluminium oxide particles, titanium dioxide particles, indium oxide particles, zinc oxide particles, silicon dioxide particles, aluminium nitride particles, calcium silicate particles, silicon carbide particles, polymeric particles, metallic particles, carbon black particles, graphene particles, graphite particles, diamond particles, other refractory materials or any combination of the particles listed above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing and constructing a 4D-printed ceramic object includes extruding inks including particles and polymeric ceramic precursors through a nozzle to deposit the inks on a heating plate, of Lu. By modifying the composition to include that the first and second structures may be different precursor materials, as taught by Lu II. Highlighting, the use of a known materials (i.e. a combination and other varieties of precursor materials) in a known environment, namely a 4D-printed ceramic object provides for the recitation of known material in the art. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the first material or second material includes poly(dimethylsiloxane), polysiloxane, polyborosiloxane, polycarbosiloxane, polysilazane or poly(organosilylcarbodiimide), cellulose, hydrogels, or combinations thereof.
Lu teaches the following:
([0053]) teaches that the polymeric ceramic precursors may be polysiloxanes, polysilsesquioxanes, polycarbosiloxanes, polycarbosilanes, polysilylcarbodiimides, polysilsesquicarbodiimides, polysilazanes, polysilsesquiazanes or any combination of the above.
Regarding Claim 4, Lu is silent on the first material being different than the second material. In analogous art for a system and method of constructing a 4D-printed ceramic object, (Abstract), Lu II suggests details regarding the inks comprising a different composition, and in this regard, Lu II teaches the following:
([0047]) teaches that the stretchability of PDMS allows for the creation of complex structures. However, it will be understood that the polymeric ceramic precursors may also include polysiloxanes, polysilsesquioxanes, polycarbosiloxane, polycarbosilanes, polysilylcarbodiimides, polysilsesquicarbodiimides, polysilazanes, polysilsesquiazanes or any combination of the above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing and constructing a 4D-printed ceramic object includes extruding inks including particles and polymeric ceramic precursors through a nozzle to deposit the inks on a heating plate, of Lu. By modifying the composition to include that the first and second structures may comprise a polysiloxane, amongst other materials, as taught by Lu II. Highlighting, the use of a known materials (i.e. a combination and other varieties of precursor materials) in a known environment, namely a 4D-printed ceramic object provides for the recitation of known material in the art. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the heating is performed by induction heating, resistance heating, or combinations thereof.
Lu teaches the following:
(Abstract) a system and method of constructing a 4D-printed ceramic object includes extruding inks including particles and polymeric ceramic precursors through a nozzle to deposit the inks on a heating plate, whereby a 3D-printed elastomeric object is formed on the heating plate. Where the heating plate is understood to be a resistance heating device.
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the particle size ranges from approximately 1 nm to 100 microns.
Lu teaches the following:
([0045]) teaches that the crystalline ZrO2 NPs with a primary average size of 20-50 nm in diameter were incorporated into a PDMS matrix. Where a particle size of size of 20-50 nm is understood to overlap with applicant’s range of 1 nm to 100 microns.
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the selected deformation is positive, negative, zero Gaussian curvature or combinations thereof.
Lu teaches the following:
([0044]) teaches that the stretchability of PDMS allows for the creation of delicate origami structures with mixed Gaussian curvatures. The structure can have positive Gaussian curvatures, negative Gaussian curvatures, zero Gaussian curvature or combinations thereof. As such, the use of various deformation such as positive, negative, zero Gaussian curvature or combinations thereof is understood to be disclosed.
Regarding claim 10 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the 3D printing is selected from extrusion, material jetting, photopolymerization, powder bed fusion or combinations thereof.
Lu teaches the following:
(Abstract) teaches that A system and method of constructing a 4D-printed ceramic object includes extruding inks including particles and polymeric ceramic precursors through a nozzle to deposit the inks on a heating plate. As such, 3D printing by extrusion is understood to be disclosed.
B.) Claim(s) 11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Lu II and in further view of Niu et al. (US 20190160730 A1, hereinafter Niu)
Regarding claim 11 as applied to claim 1,
Further comprising removing a portion of the structure to create a shaped structure prior to or after treating.
Regarding Claim 11, Lu is silent on the first material being different than the second material. In analogous art for fabricating a hybrid polymeric structure, a method for fabricating a hybrid polymeric structure and a method for connecting two polymeric layers with the hybrid polymeric structure, (Abstract) including that the plurality of two-dimensional network structures are printed by 3D printing., ([0023]), Niu suggests details regarding removing a portion of the structure to create a shaped structure prior to or after treating, and in this regard, Niu teaches the following:
([0060]) teaching that it is also possible that the open cell structures or the cavities may be formed after the polymerization step of the polymer, such as by dissolving or removing portions of the polymer after curing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing and constructing a 4D-printed ceramic object includes extruding inks including particles and polymeric ceramic precursors through a nozzle to deposit the inks on a heating plate, of Lu as modified by Lu II. By further modifying the process to including removing a portion of the article / structure to create a shaped structure, as taught by Niu. Highlighting one would be motivated to including removing a portion of the article / structure to create a shaped structure as it provides for forming open cell structures or cavities. Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
C.) Claim(s) 12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Lu II and in further view of Niu and in further view of Ganapathiappan (US 20170203406 A1, hereinafter Ganapathiappan)
Regarding claim 12 as applied to claim 11,
Wherein removing a portion of the structure is by controlled laser beams.
Regarding Claim 12, Lu as modified by Lu II and Niu is silent on the removing a portion of the structure is by controlled laser beams. In analogous art for fabricating a three-dimensional printing processes, that provides for porous articles with unique properties and attributes, (Abstract), the porous articles fabricated from the pre-polymer inks or compositions, ([0092]) comprising ceramic particles ([0148]), Ganapathiappan suggests details regarding removing a portion of the structure to create a shaped structure by controlled laser beams, and in this regard, Ganapathiappan teaches the following:
([0236]) teaches that designs that may be complex may be fabricated by other means. Including non-additive manufacturing type processes and/or subtractive process that may be employed to manufacture some aspects of these complex designs. These processes may include multi-material injection molding and/or sequential step UV casting to form material layers from single discrete materials. These forming steps are then typically followed by machining and post processing using milling, grinding or laser ablation operations or other subtractive technique. Where laser ablation is understood to provide for removing a portion of the structure is by controlled laser beams.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing and constructing a 4D-printed ceramic object includes extruding inks including particles and polymeric ceramic precursors through a nozzle to deposit the inks on a heating plate, of Lu as modified by Lu II and Niu. By further modifying the process to include laser ablation of the article, as taught by Ganapathiappan. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include laser ablation of the article as it provides for advanced and designs that may be complex to be manufactured by other non-additive manufacturing type processes and/or subtractive process, ([0236]). Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Saxena et al. (US 20180147628 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) an apparatus for manufacturing an object includes a first assembly including a laser for laser-based additive manufacturing of a powder material for forming the object, and a second assembly coacting with the first assembly for cooling at least a portion of said object during said additive manufacturing. A
Lu et al. (US 20190381691 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) A system and method of constructing a 4D-printed ceramic object, the method including extruding inks including particles and polymeric patterns through a nozzle to deposit the inks to form a first elastic structure, subjecting the first elastic structure to tensile stress along at least one axis, extruding inks including particles and polymeric patterns through a nozzle to deposit the inks to form a second elastic structure provided to the first elastic structure under tensile stress,
Lu et al. (US 20190366583 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) A system and a method for constructing a printed ceramic object, the method including the steps of extruding a substance to generate a 3D-printed elastomeric object; deforming the 3D-printed elastomeric object into a complex structure to form a printed elastomeric origami object; and transforming the printed elastomeric origami object into an aforesaid printed ceramic origami object.
Lu et al. (US 20230115347 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) The present invention provides a method of in situ 4D printing of high-temperature materials including 3D printing a structure of an ink including a precursor. The structure is treated with controlled high energy flow to create a portion which has a different coefficient of thermal expansion/thermal shrinkage ratio.
Yang et al. (3D printing of shape memory polymer for functional part fabrication, 2016) – teaches in the (Abstract) that this article presents a novel method of shape memory polymer (SMP) processing for additive manufacturing, in particular, fused-deposition modeling (FDM). Critical extrusion process parameters have been experimented to determine an appropriate set of parameter values so that good-quality SMP filament could be made for FDM. In the FDM process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrés E. Behrens Jr. whose telephone number is (571)-272-9096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 AM-5:30 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571)-270-7001. 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.
/Andrés E. Behrens Jr./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JaMel M Nelson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743