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 of Group I, claims 1-5, 10-13, 1, 18-19, 21, 24-25, 33-34, and 37 in the reply filed on 8/5/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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 2-3, 33, and 37 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 2 recites limitations such as “a composite material,” “a plurality of discrete droplets,” “a liquid inclusion composition,” “a prepolymer composition,” “a plurality of microstructures,” “a polymer matrix,” “a shape,” “an aspect ratio,” “a microstructure” (on multiple instances), “a connectivity.” Each of these terms is previously use in claim 1 and it is not clear if these are referring to additional and separate components or the same components as in claim 1, especially given that claim 37 further specifies that the first and second ink are the same. These terms will be interpreted to refer to either the same or a different component as their counterparts in claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the term “the nozzle”. It is not clear if this refers to the first nozzle or the second nozzle. This will be interpreted to refer to either nozzle. Claim 3 is rejected as being dependent from claim 2.
Claim 33 recites “the subsequent layer.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 33 depends from claim 1 but the subsequent layer is not introduced until claim 2. Claim 33 is being interpreted as being dependent from claim 2.
Claim 37 recites the limitation “the second emulsion ink.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 37 depends from claim 1 but the second emulsion ink is not recited until claim 2. Claim 37 is being interpreted as being dependent from claim 2.
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 1-5, 10-13, 16, 18-19, 21, 24-25, 33-34, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asgari (US 2006/0211802) and Plott (US 2021/0129443.)
Regarding claim 1, Asgari meets the claimed, A method of additive manufacturing of an article comprising a composite material: (Asgari [0082] discloses 3D printing with a composition) the method comprising: (a) extruding a first emulsion ink composition (Asgari [0082] discloses extruding) to form a first layer of a composite material (Asgari [0082] discloses forming a coating) the first emulsion ink composition comprises a plurality of discrete droplets of a liquid inclusion composition dispersed within a prepolymer composition; (Asgari [0026] describes a metal compound emulsion encapsulated by a polymer, [0057] discloses the metal compounds are in liquid form, [0046] discloses a prepolymer or oligomer) the composite material comprises a plurality of microstructures formed from the liquid inclusion composition embedded within a polymer matrix formed from the prepolymer composition; (Asgari [0046] describes microparticles formed from the metal and polymer emulsion)
Asgari does not describe the more specific details of the 3D printing process and does not meet the claimed, (a) extruding a first emulsion ink composition through a first nozzle in a pattern that corresponds to a first layer of an article, and a first nozzle height and a first nozzle velocity at which the first emulsion ink composition is extruded from the first nozzle are chosen to control one or more of a shape of a microstructure, an aspect ratio of a microstructure, and a connectivity of microstructures in the plurality of microstructures in the first layer of the article.
Analogous in the field of 3D printing, Plott also discloses a 3D printing process and discusses printing compositions including dispersions which are similar to emulsions. Plott meets the claimed, (a) extruding a first emulsion ink composition through a first nozzle in a pattern that corresponds to a first layer of an article, (Plott [0026] discloses depositing layers according to slice information, [0029] discloses printing via a nozzle for each layer) and a first nozzle height and a first nozzle velocity at which the first emulsion ink composition is extruded from the first nozzle are chosen to control one or more of a shape of a microstructure, an aspect ratio of a microstructure, and a connectivity of microstructures in the plurality of microstructures in the first layer of the article (Plott [0047] describes choosing the nozzle height to control the flatness or spread of the deposited material (shape or aspect ratio), [0052]-[0053] describes controlling the nozzle velocity to adjust the volumetric flow rate and [0059]-[0061] describes that modifying the flow rate modifies the flat shape of the deposited composition.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the 3D printing process disclosed in Asgari with the process of printing through a nozzle as described in Plott in order to control the shape of the material being deposited, see Plott [0047]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the 3D printing method of Asgari with the step of controlling the shape or aspect ratio of the printed structure via controlling the nozzle height and velocity as disclosed in Plott in order to flatten the deposited composition and fill any voids, see Plott [0037] and [0060].
Regarding claim 2, Asgari as modified by Plott previously meets the claimed, The method of claim 1, further comprising: (b) extruding a second emulsion ink the second emulsion ink composition comprises a plurality of discrete droplets of a liquid inclusion composition dispersed within a prepolymer composition; (Asgari [0082] discloses extruding, [0026], [0057], and [0046] disclose the emulsified liquid metal within the prepolymer) the subsequent layer comprises a plurality of microstructures formed from the liquid inclusion composition embedded within a polymer matrix formed from the prepolymer composition; (Asgari [0046] describes microparticles formed from the metal and polymer emulsion)
Asgari does not disclose a second nozzle, second nozzle height, or second nozzle velocity. Plott meets the claimed, extruding a second emulsion ink through a second nozzle (Plott [0030] discloses using additional supplemental nozzles) composition to form a subsequent layer of a composite material in a pattern that corresponds to a subsequent layer of the article the subsequent layer is formed on either the first layer of the article or another subsequent layer of the article; (Plott [0026]-[0027] discloses layer-by-layer printing) and a second nozzle height and a second nozzle velocity at which the second emulsion ink composition is extruded from the nozzle are chosen to control one or more of a shape of a microstructure, an aspect ratio of a microstructure, and a connectivity of a microstructure in the plurality of microstructures in the second layer of the article (Plott [0047] describes choosing the nozzle height to control the flatness or spread of the deposited material (shape or aspect ratio), [0052]-[0053] describes controlling the nozzle velocity to adjust the volumetric flow rate and [0059]-[0061] describes that modifying the flow rate modifies the flat shape of the deposited composition.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the 3D printing process of Asgari with the second nozzle printing a layer on top of the previously deposited layer disclosed in Plott in order to accommodate other compositions or to print additional objects or layers simultaneously, see Plott [0030]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the printing method of Asgari with the additional nozzle height and velocity in order to flatten the deposited composition and fill any voids, see Plott [0037] and [0060].
Regarding claim 3, Plott further meets the claimed, The method according to claim 2, wherein step (b) is repeated multiple times to form the article in a layer-by-layer approach (Plott [0026]-[0027] discloses layer-by-layer printing multiple times).
Regarding claim 3, Asgari does not disclose the aspect ratio. Plott does not explicitly disclose the aspect ratio and does not explicitly meet the claimed, The method of claim 1, wherein the aspect ratio of at least one of the microstructures formed from the inclusion composition is from about 3 up to about 500, however, an object of Asgari is to control the amount of spread or flatness of the deposited material in order to fill voids, see Asgari [0047]. Asgari discloses that the width of the deposited material is a result-effective variable which affects the void amount in the deposited layer. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the flatness of the deposited layer and thereby the aspect ratio (increased flatness is increased width and therefore increased aspect ratio) through routine optimization in order to achieve the best void fill, see Plott [0047] and MPEP §2144.05(II)(B).
Regarding claim 5, Asgari does not disclose the aspect ratio. Plott does not explicitly disclose the aspect ratio and does not explicitly meet the claimed, The method of claim 1, wherein the mean aspect ratio of the microstructures formed from the inclusion composition is from about 1 to about 500 however, an object of Asgari is to control the amount of spread or flatness of the deposited material in order to fill voids, see Asgari [0047]. Asgari discloses that the width of the deposited material is a result-effective variable which affects the void amount in the deposited layer. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the flatness of the deposited layer and thereby the aspect ratio (increased flatness is increased width and therefore increased aspect ratio) through routine optimization in order to achieve the best void fill, see Plott [0047] and MPEP §2144.05(II)(B).
Regarding claim 10, Asgari meets the claimed, The method of claim 1, wherein the inclusion composition comprises a liquid metal (Asgari [0026] describes a metal compound emulsion encapsulated by a polymer, [0057] discloses the metal compounds are in liquid form.)
Regarding claim 11, Asgari meets the claimed, The method of claim 1, wherein the inclusion composition includes a surface tension modifier (Asgari [0046] discloses the encapsulated metal contains surfactants which are surface tension modifiers.)
Regarding claim 12, Asgari meets the claimed, The method of claim 10, wherein the liquid metal is selected from the group consisting of gallium (Ga), rubidium (Rb), cesium (Cs), francium (Fr), indium (In), bismuth (Bi), tin (Sn), cadmium (Cd), thallium (Tl), antimony (Sb), alloys thereof and alloys with other elements, and mixtures thereof (Asgari [0032] discloses metals including InGaAs.)
Regarding claim 13, Asgari meets the claimed, The method according to claim 10, wherein the liquid metal comprises a gallium-indium alloy (Asgari [0032] discloses metals including InGaAs.)
Regarding claim 16, Asgari meets the claimed, The method of claim 1, wherein the prepolymer composition comprises an elastomer, and wherein the elastomer comprises silicone, polyurethane, thermoplastic elastomers, or a combination thereof (Asgari [0049] discloses polymers including polyurethanes, [0053] generally discloses elastomers.)
Regarding claim 18, Asgari meets the claimed, The method of claim 1, wherein the prepolymer composition comprises a thermoset, wherein the thermoset is selected from the group consisting of epoxies, polyesters, polyurethanes, polyimides, acrylonitriles, copolymers thereof, and blends thereof (Asgari [0048] discloses thermosets, [0049] discloses a number of polymers including polyurethanes.)
Regarding claim 19, Asgari meets the claimed, The method of claim 1, wherein the prepolymer composition comprises a thermoplastic, (Asgari [0048] discloses thermoplastic polymers) wherein the thermoplastic is selected from the group consisting of polyolefins, polystyrenes, polyesters, polycarbonates, nylons, acrylics, polyacrylates, butyl, polybutenes, polyisobutylenes, liquid crystal polymers (LCP), ethylene copolymers, vinyl chloride, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), ionomers, ketones, polyamides, polyether block amide (PBA), polyphenylene oxide (PPO), polyphenylene sulphide (PPS), copolymers thereof, and blends thereof (Asgari [0049] discloses polyolefins.)
Regarding claim 21, Asgari does not explicitly meet the claimed, The method of claim 1, wherein the droplets of the liquid inclusion composition in the first emulsion ink are from about 5 pm and up to about 800 pm in diameter, wherein the diameter of a given droplet is defined as the diameter of a perfectly spherical droplet comprising the same volume of the droplet, however Asgari [0041] and [0047] describe the metal particle size is a result-effective variable which affects the porosity of a final product made by the composition. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the size of the metal particles through routine optimization in order to modify the future pore size of manufactured articles, see Asgari [0041].
Regarding claim 24, Asgari does not describe different layers and does not meet the claimed, The method of claim 1, further comprising disturbing the first layer of the composite material to interconnect one or more distinct microstructures of inclusion material.
Plott meets the claimed, The method of claim 1, further comprising disturbing the first layer of the composite material to interconnect one or more distinct microstructures of inclusion material (Plott [0084]-[0086] describe “wet-on-wet” printing such that a second layer is printed on top of a still wet first layer in order to physically or chemically bond the layers together. The printing of the second layer contacting the first layer is the “disturbing” of the first layer.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the process of Asgari with the wet-on-wet printing as described in Plott in order to increase the durability of the printed article, see Plott [0085].
Regarding claim 25, Plott further meets the claimed, The method according to claim 24, wherein one or both of the first nozzle height and the first nozzle velocity are chosen to interconnect two or more of the droplets to form interconnected microstructures (Platt [0052]-[0053] describes controlling the nozzle velocity to adjust the volumetric flow rate and [0059]-[0061] describes that modifying the flow rate modifies the flat shape of the deposited composition and fill voids. Filling voids helps form interconnected microstructures.)
Regarding claim 33, Asgari does not disclose subsequent heat or UV radiation to cure and does not meet the claimed, The method of claim 1, wherein one or both of the first layer of the composite material and the subsequent layer of the composite material are cured using one or more of heat and UV light to form the polymer matrix.
Plott meets the claimed, The method of claim 1, wherein one or both of the first layer of the composite material and the subsequent layer of the composite material are cured using one or more of heat and UV light to form the polymer matrix (Plott [0186]-[0187] describe a solidification step including exposure to UV radiation.)
The courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method of printing disclosed in Asgari with the UV curing step disclosed in Plott because UV curing is a known method of curing a photocurable polymer, see Plott [0188]-[0189].
Regarding claim 34, Plott further meets the claimed, The method of claim 1, wherein one or both of the first nozzle height and the first nozzle velocity are controllably modified as the first layer is extruded so that one or more of a shape of a microstructure, an aspect ratio of a microstructure, and a connectivity of microstructures varies across the first layer (Plott [0038] discloses modifying the nozzle height during printing.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method of Asgari with the step of modifying the nozzle height during printing in order to control the flatness of the deposited material, see Plott [0047].
Regarding claim 37, Asgari only describes one composition but does not describe multiple nozzles. Plott meets the claimed, The method according to claim 1, wherein the first emulsion ink and the second emulsion ink are the same (Plott [0030] discloses multiple nozzles printing a particular composition.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the method of Asgari by combining the second nozzle being used to print the same composition as described in Plott in order to print multiple components at a time, see Plott [0030].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2019/0264046: see Example 1 describing an emulsion of PDMS microbeads in a PVA solution which is used as an ink in a 3D printer
Liquid Metal–Elastomer Soft Composites with Independently Controllable and Highly Tunable Droplet Size and Volume Loading (2019): see section 5 describing an alloy of gallium and indium being incorporated into a prepolymer, see page 17876 discussing 3D printing of LM particles, see page 17877 describing aspect ratios and particle sizes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA BARTLETT whose telephone number is (571)272-4953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm 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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/V.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights