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 I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 6/9/2026 is acknowledged. The Examiner is assuming the election is without traverse as Applicant did not present any arguments against the propriety of the restriction requirement.
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/9/2026.
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.
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 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, Hongzhi et al. “A Material Combination Concept to Realize 4D Printed Products with Newly Emerging Property/Functionality,” Advanced Science, 2020 (hereinafter “Wu”) in view of Zhang et al. (CN114910194A, hereinafter “Zhang”).
The Examiner is providing a machine translation of CN114910194A.
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches a process for making a flexible integrated magnetoelectric device including selective laser sintering thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) powder and Nd-Fe-B powder to form a porous structure, then magnetizing the porous structure to make a magnetized part (Wu, pg. 2, Figure 1). Wu further teaches a 3D computer-aided design model is first designed then the model is 3D printed using the SLS process (Wu, pg. 2, “2. Results and Discussion”). Wu teaches the combined magnetoelectric device can be easily compressed and then quickly recover to the original shape and can be proved by the relationship curve between stress and strain (Wu, pg. 4, column 1, paragraph 3).
However, Wu does not explicitly disclose a step of S3: performing a surface treatment on the three-dimensional lattice substrate, preparing a liquid metal, and transferring the liquid metal to a surface of the three- dimensional lattice substrate to form a conductive network.
With respect to the difference, Zhang teaches a method for making a flexible pressure sensor with integrated structure and function (Zhang, [n0001]). Zhang teaches the method includes designing the model of the flexible pressure sensor structure and using 3D printing to process and manufacture the flexible substrates, then immersing the flexible substrate in a container containing liquid metal or liquid metal composite material to fill the spatial interconnected conductive network of the substrate (Zhang, [0019-0024]).
As Zhang expressly teaches, the process allows for the combination of 3D printing with the easy filling of liquid metal, enabling the integrated manufacturing of the structure and function of flexible sensors, avoiding multilayer bonding and encapsulation, preventing liquid metal leakage, and improving device stability (Zhang, [n0012], i.e., [0025]).
Wu and Zhang are analogous art as they are both drawn to making 3D printed flexible structures (Wu, Abstract; Zhang, [n0001]).
In light of the motivation to perform a liquid metal immersion step after 3D printing a flexible structure as taught in Zhang above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform liquid metal immersion after SLS and prior to magnetization in Wu in order to easily fill liquid metal, enable the integrated manufacturing of the structure and function of flexible sensors, avoid multilayer bonding and encapsulation, prevent liquid metal leakage, and improve device stability (Zhang, [n0012], i.e., [0025]), and thereby arrive at the present invention.
The method of Wu in view of Zhang corresponds to a method for manufacturing a lattice current collector with both functions of strain sensing and high-temperature circuit breaking of claim 1. Designing the 3D design model of Wu corresponds to a step of S 1: constructing a model of a three-dimensional lattice substrate of claim 1. Using SLS to 3D print a mixed TPU and Nd-Fe-B powder to form the porous structure of Wu corresponds to a step of S2: taking a mixed powder as a raw material, performing printing according to the constructed model of the three-dimensional lattice substrate based on additive manufacturing technology to obtain the three-dimensional lattice substrate, wherein the mixed powder comprises a flexible polymer powder and a permanent magnetic powder of claim 1.
Immersing the substrate in a liquid metal bath of Wu in view of Zhang corresponds to a step of S3: performing a surface treatment on the three-dimensional lattice substrate, preparing a liquid metal, and transferring the liquid metal to a surface of the three-dimensional lattice substrate to form a conductive network of claim 1. Magnetizing the coated porous structure of Wu in view of Zhang corresponds to a step of S4: magnetizing the three-dimensional lattice substrate to obtain a magnetic three-dimensional lattice substrate current collector, which is a lattice current collector with both functions of strain sensing and high-temperature circuit breaking of claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Wu further teaches the mixed TPU and Nd-Fe-B powders comprise 20, 30,and 40 wt.% Nd-Fe-B powder (Wu, pg. 8, “4. Experimental Section”). The wt.% of Nd-Fe-B powders of Wu fall within a mass fraction of the permanent magnetic powder in the mixed powder is 20% to 40% of claim 2. The TPU and Nd-Fe-B powder of Wu corresponds to the flexible polymer powder is a thermoplastic polyurethane powder, and the permanent magnetic powder is at least one of a neodymium iron boron powder, a ferrite powder, an iron nickel powder, or an iron cobalt powder of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Wu teaches the Nd-Fe-B particles were mixed with the TPU powders to obtain average particle sizes of about 50 µm (Wu, pg. 2, “2. Results and Discussion”), which falls within a particle size of the mixed powder is 20-100 µm of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Wu teaches the Nd-Fe-B powder and TPU powder are mixed with fumed silica, that can improve the fluidity of the composite powders, for 2 minutes with a mixing rate of 500 rpm (Wu, pg. 8, “4. Experimental Section”). The mixing process of Wu corresponds to wherein, in the step of S2, a method for preparing the raw material comprises: adding the mixed powder of the flexible polymer powder and the permanent magnetic powder to a ball mill, and adding a flow aid powder at the same time for mixing together of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, the selective laser sintering process of Wu corresponds to in the step of S2, the additive manufacturing technology is a selective laser sintering process, a vat photopolymerization (VP) process, or another additive manufacturing process suitable for polymer materials of claim 6.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Zhang teaches the liquid metal immersion liquid can be 68.5 mass% gallium, 21.5 mass% indium, and 10 mass% tin (Zhang, [n0017], i.e., [0035]), where the immersion step fills the spatial interconnected conductive network of the substrate (Zhang, [0019-0024]). The composition of the liquid metal of Zhang corresponds to in the step of S3, the liquid metal is a gallium-indium alloy or an indium-bismuth-tin alloy of claim 8. The immersion step of Zhang corresponds to in the step of S3, the three-dimensional lattice substrate is immersed in the liquid metal such that the liquid metal adheres to the surface of the three-dimensional lattice substrate, and the conductive network is formed upon completion of transfer of claim 9.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Paul et al. (US 2008/0108122 A1, hereinafter “Paul”).
Regarding claim 7, while Wu in view of Zhang teaches the process of claim 1, Wu and Zhang do not explicitly disclose in the step of S3, the surface treatment is performed on the three-dimensional lattice substrate by a plasma surface oxidation or a PMA adhesive treatment.
With respect to the difference, Paul teaches a process for laminating microfluidic structure in which film formation can be by wet chemical deposition (Paul, Abstract and [0491-0492]). Paul teaches the wet chemical deposition includes two kinds of methods used to coal films, dip coating and spin coating, in which during dip coating includes immersing a substrate in a solution (Paul, [0492]). Paul teaches it is desirable to activate the surface of the substrate by using a plasma oxidation process (Paul, [0492]).
As Paul expressly teaches the wet chemical deposition allow for good control of the microstructure and uniformity over large coating areas and the plasma oxidation process activates the surface of the substrate for chemical bonds to form between the substrate and film coating material (Paul, [0491-0492]).
Wu, Zhang, and Paul are analogous art as they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, i.e., forming a lattice current collector with a liquid metal coating (Wu, Abstract, Zhang, [n0001]; and Paul, [0491-0492]).
In light of the motivation to use a plasma oxidation process prior to dip coating as taught in Paul above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use plasma oxidation prior to immersing the substrate of Wu in view of Zhang in order to activate the surface of the substrate for chemical bonds to form between the substrate and film coating material (Paul, [0491-0492]), and thereby arrive at the present invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE CARDA whose telephone number is (571)270-1240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-4:00 EST.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/DANIELLE M. CARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights