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, corresponding to Claims 1-6 in the reply filed on December 3, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 7-10 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 2 is 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 that “the HAFMS-TSA generates combined deformations (axial, radial and/or twisting) upon symmetric stimuli” in lines 1-2. The use of the phrase “(axial, radial and/or twisting)” in parentheses following the “deformations” limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the recitations present in the parentheses following the phrase “deformations” are part of the claimed invention, or merely exemplary. See M.P.E.P. § 2173.05(d). Additionally, Claim 2 recites the limitation “the axial, radial and/or torsional combined deformation” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For example, this is the first instance in which the phrase “torsional” is introduced. As such, Claim 2 is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 2, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 113802209 to Yuan et al. (an English translation obtained from the PE2E database is referenced herein) (“Yuan”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0291535 to Ridley et al. (“Ridley”) and Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 106883863 to Ji et al. (an English translation obtained from the PE2E database is referenced herein) (“Ji”).
With regard to Claim 1, Yuan discloses a mesogenic liquid crystal elastomer fiber capable of spiral bending and useful in artificial muscle and artificial intelligence applications. See, e.g., Abstract, Background, entire document. Yuan discloses that the liquid crystal elastomer fiber can be wound and twisted under tension and torsional strain to generate a three-dimensional orientation that can undergo deformation and reversible recovery. Pages 2-3. Yuan discloses that the liquid crystal elastomer fiber exhibits a soft elasticity. Page 2. Yuan discloses that the liquid crystal elastomer contains acrylate groups and a crosslinking agent containing thiol groups and undergoes crosslinking reaction during polymerization with a Michael addition reaction catalyst. Page 2. Yuan discloses that the liquid crystal elastomer fiber is responsive to external stimuli, such as electricity or heat. Pages 2 and 4. Yuan does not disclose that the liquid crystal elastomer fibers is provided in a helical configuration as a tubular soft actuator. Ridley is also related to a system for providing artificial muscles using a twisted fiber material. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Ridley teaches that artificial muscles can be suitable provided by coiled actuators that are “produced through a twist insertion process. For example, a fiber can be twisted to the point of coiling. In another example, a fiber can be twisted nearly to the point of coiling and then wrapped around a mandrel or fiber or yarn core.” Paragraph [0024]. Ridley discloses that the coil can be wound tightly. Paragraph [0040]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide the liquid crystal elastomer fiber disclosed by Yuan with a tight helical configuration as a tubular soft actuator in order to provide a suitable use of the fiber in the application of artificial muscles, as shown to be known by Ridley. Yuan does not disclose the molar ratio of acrylate groups to the thiol groups. Ji is also related to liquid crystal elastomer that undergoes crosslinking during polymerization for use in artificial muscles. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Ji teaches that a suitable liquid crystal molecule is formed using acrylate groups and thiol crosslinking groups at a molar ratio of 1:1 to 1:1.1. Page 5. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide a molar ratio of acrylate groups to thiol groups in the range of 0.8-1.4:1 in the elastomer disclosed by Yuan in order to provide a molar ratio of the liquid crystal elastomer that is suitable for use in artificial muscles, as shown to be known by Ji. With regard to the limitation the liquid crystal monomers are partially crosslinked at an initial phase and then subjected to a second chemical crosslinking and a third further crosslinking process, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Ultimately, Claim 1 requires that the final form of the actuator be crosslinked to a certain degree. In this instance, both Yuan and Ji teach that the liquid crystal elastomer is undergoes a crosslinking reaction. As such, the burden has been shifted to the applicant to show an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). With regard to Claim 2, Ridley discloses that the coiled actuator can exhibit axial shortening and radial expansion. Figure 18. With regard to Claims 4 and 6, Yuan discloses that “the liquid crystal monomer contains acrylate end group, except with the same acrylate group, different flexible chain length in the liquid crystal monomer and different other end groups and other factors of crosslinking density and polymerization degree of the liquid crystal elastomer system will be different.” Page 3.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan in view of Ridley and Ji as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiao et al., "Synergistic effect of axial-torsional-radial deformation on the multi-strand helical filament artificial muscles," Applied Mathematical Modelling, volume 109, 2022, pages 760-774 (“Xiao”).
With regard to Claims 3 and 5, the combination of Yuan with Ridley and Ji does not disclose the nature of the combined axial, radial, and torsional deformations with respect to the winding angle of the coiled actuator. Nonetheless, it is well understood in the art that various tensile forces can be present as a result of helical angle and radial strain. Xiao is related to helical structures in artificial muscles. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Xiao discloses that “the axial-radial and torsional-radial coupling responses are dominant in the moderate and high helical angular configurations, and the increase of radial strain may weaken the axial strength and heighten the torsional strength of artificial muscles.” Abstract. Xiao teaches that radial deformation of the actuator allows for improved elastic property of the artificial muscles. Figures 5-6 and page 770. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide a winding angle in the range of 0 to 90 degrees to allow deformation of the actuator in the liquid crystal elastomer fiber disclosed by the combination of Yuan with Ridley and Ji in order to provide improved artificial muscle performance, as shown to be known by Xiao. It is also reasonable to presume that the characteristics outlined by Claims 3 and 5 would be inherent to the combination of references, given that the combined references disclose using similar materials, i.e., a coiled actuator formed using liquid crystal elastomer that comprises acrylate groups and thiol crosslinking groups in a similar ratio amount to provide a similar end use product, i.e., artificial muscle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Hu et al., “Self-winding liquid crystal elastomer fiber actuators with high degree of freedom and tunable actuation,” Applied materials today, volume 27, June 2022, 101449.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY R PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 am to 5 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, Marla D. McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
JEREMY R. PIERCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/JEREMY R PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789