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 1-11, in the reply filed on 1/29/2026 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)).
Claims 12-18 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 1/29/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "208" (as shown in Fig. 3) and "218" (as shown in Fig. 4) have both been used to designate the “reducer”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 400 as shown in Fig. 4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-11 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 1 recites, “A method of fabricating a stimuli-responsive object, the method comprising: providing a first feedstock and a second feedstock to a print head…the print head comprises n multipliers; extruding a multi-sublayer extrudate from the print head, wherein the multi-sublayer extrudate comprises 2(n+1)/2 sublayers of the first feedstock and 2(n+1)/2 sublayers of the second feedstock, and 2(n+1)/2 - 1 sublayers of the first feedstock are in direct contact with two sublayers of the second feedstock” (emphasis added) on lines 1-7; however, the claim fails to define “n” and given that the specification also does not specifically define or limit “n” as recited in the claim(s), one having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention and could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement, e.g., can “n” be zero? Or is “n” required to be an integer greater than zero? And if so, is “n” limited to a specific range? Is there a maximum number for “n”?
Dependent claims 2-11 do not remedy the above and hence are indefinite for the same reasons, wherein it is noted that claims 2 and 4 also refer to 2(n+1) sublayers without clearly indicating what is meant to be encompassed by the claimed “n” in the equation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ravichandran (US2023/0264418A1). Ravichandran discloses a method of fabricating a multilayered polymer nanocomposite object (112) formed by an additive manufacturing process wherein the method comprises providing a first feedstock (126) and a second feedstock (130) to a print head (110), wherein the first feedstock, the second feedstock, or both comprise a polymer composite, particularly a polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)-multiwalled nanotube (MWNT) composite in one example (reading upon the claimed “one or more stimuli-responsive polymer composites given that such a composite is inherently responsive to at least one “stimuli” and hence the resulting fabricated object is also inherently a “stimuli-responsive object” as in the claimed invention), and the print head comprises n multipliers; extruding a multi-sublayer extrudate from the print head, wherein the multi-sublayer extrudate comprises 2(n+1) alternating layers (as in instant claim 2) of the first feedstock and the second feedstock, or more particularly, “wherein the multi-sublayer extrudate comprises 2(n+1)/2 sublayers of the first feedstock and 2(n+1)/2 sublayers of the second feedstock, and 2(n+1)/2 - 1 sublayers of the first feedstock are in direct contact with two sublayers of the second feedstock” as in instant claim 1 (as evidenced by the examples and Figs. 6A-G); depositing the multi-sublayer extrudate on a printing substrate to yield an extrudate layer; and polymerizing or otherwise solidifying (“curing”) the multilayer extrudate to yield the multilayered composite object (Entire document, particularly Abstract; Figs. 1A-2C and 6A-6G; Paragraphs 0002-0005, 0007-0012, 0028-0029, 0031-0034, 0044-0045, and Examples). Hence, Ravichandran anticipates instant claims 1-2, as well as instant claims 5 and 7 given that “PVA” is a “thermally actuated” polymer as broadly recited in instant claim 5 and a “thermoplastic” polymer as broadly recited in instant claim 7.
With respect to instant claim 3, Ravichandran discloses that the process may include stacking layers on top of each other (Paragraph 0050), and given that Ravichandran also discloses that the “printed microlayers and macrolayers undergo solidification processes” (Paragraph 0044), and that in general, the process as an additive or 3D printing process that builds an object by depositing, joining, or solidifying material in a layer-by-layer manner (Paragraphs 0002-0003), Ravichandran anticipates instant claim 3 (Paragraph 0050).
The applied reference has a common joint inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ravichandran (Multiphase direct ink writing (MDIW) for multilayered polymer/nanoparticle composites, hereinafter referred to as “Ravichandran Sept 2021”, on IDS dated 1/5/2026). Similar to Ravichandran above, Ravichandran Sept 2021 discloses a method of fabricating a multilayered polymer nanocomposite object formed by an additive manufacturing process wherein the method comprises providing a first feedstock A and a second feedstock B to a print head, wherein the first feedstock A, the second feedstock B, or both comprise a polymer/nanoparticle composite, particularly a polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)-multiwalled nanotube (MWNT) composite in the examples (reading upon the claimed “one or more stimuli-responsive polymer composites given that such a composite is inherently responsive to at least one “stimuli” and hence the resulting fabricated object is also inherently a “stimuli-responsive object” as in the claimed invention), and the print head comprises n multipliers; extruding a multi-sublayer extrudate from the print head, wherein the multi-sublayer extrudate comprises 2(n+1) alternating layers (as in instant claim 2) of the first feedstock and the second feedstock, or more particularly, “wherein the multi-sublayer extrudate comprises 2(n+1)/2 sublayers of the first feedstock and 2(n+1)/2 sublayers of the second feedstock, and 2(n+1)/2 - 1 sublayers of the first feedstock are in direct contact with two sublayers of the second feedstock” as in instant claim 1 (as evidenced by Figs. 1 and 4-6); depositing the multi-sublayer extrudate on a printing substrate to yield an extrudate layer; and solidifying (“curing”) the multilayer extrudate to yield the multilayered composite object (Entire document, particularly Abstract; Sections 2.2 and 3; and Figs. 1-6). Hence, Ravichandran Sept 2021 anticipates instant claims 1-2, as well as instant claims 5 and 7 given again that “PVA” is a “thermally actuated” polymer as broadly recited in instant claim 5 and a “thermoplastic” polymer as broadly recited in instant claim 7.
With respect to instant claims 3-4, Ravichandran Sept 2021 specifically discloses that the process includes depositing or stacking additional layers thereon along the z-axis in a pattern or manner wherein a subsequent layer or macrolayer is deposited transverse to a previous deposited layer as shown in Fig. 1d, and given that Ravichandran Sept 2021 discloses that the microlayers and macrolayers printed via the MDIW process are feasible through solidification processes, referring to Fig. 1d (Section 3.1), Ravichandran Sept 2021 anticipates instant claims 3-4.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ravichandran (Intrinsic Field-Induced Nanoparticle Assembly in Three-Dimensional (3D) Printing Polymeric Composites, hereinafter referred to as “Ravichandran Oct 2021”, on IDS dated 1/5/2026). Like Ravichandran and Ravichandran Sept 2021 above, Ravichandran Oct 2021 similarly discloses a method of fabricating a multilayered polymer nanocomposite object formed by an additive manufacturing process wherein the method comprises providing a first feedstock A and a second feedstock B to a print head, wherein the first feedstock A, the second feedstock B, or both comprise a polymer/nanoparticle composite, referring particularly to the PVA/MWNT composite feedstock of Ravichandran Sept 2021 as discussed with respect to Fig. 12(a)-(d) (which is essentially the same as Fig. 1(c), (d), (f), and 4(a)-(b) of Ravichandran Sept 2021; reading upon the claimed “one or more stimuli-responsive polymer composites given again that such a composite is inherently responsive to at least one “stimuli” and hence the resulting fabricated object is also inherently a “stimuli-responsive object” as in the claimed invention), and the print head comprises n multipliers; extruding a multi-sublayer extrudate from the print head, wherein the multi-sublayer extrudate comprises 2(n+1) alternating layers (as in instant claim 2) of the first feedstock and the second feedstock, or more particularly, “wherein the multi-sublayer extrudate comprises 2(n+1)/2 sublayers of the first feedstock and 2(n+1)/2 sublayers of the second feedstock, and 2(n+1)/2 - 1 sublayers of the first feedstock are in direct contact with two sublayers of the second feedstock” as in instant claim 1 (as evidenced by Fig. 12); depositing the multi-sublayer extrudate on a printing substrate to yield an extrudate layer; and solidifying or curing the multilayer extrudate to yield the multilayered composite object (Entire document, particularly Abstract; Introduction; Fig. 12; Section 3.1.5); and given that Fig. 12(c) specifically illustrates the stacking of the layers in a transverse manner as in instant claims 3-4, the Examiner takes the position that Ravichandran Oct 2021 anticipates instant claims 1-5 and 7, given again that PVA is a “thermally actuated” polymer as broadly recited in instant claim 5 and a “thermoplastic” polymer as broadly recited in instant claim 7; and especially given that Ravichandran Oct 2021 specifically refers to 4D printing, i.e., 3D printing of stimuli-responsive structures, in Section 2.
Further with respect to instant claim 7 as well as instant claims 8 and 9, Ravichandran Oct 2021 clearly discloses the known use of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) in producing 3D printed polymeric composites as well as the use of magnetic nanoparticles (Sections 2, 3.1, and 3.2) such that the use of either in the MDIW process described by Ravichandran Oct 2021 in Section 3.1 would have been clearly envisaged, and hence, the Examiner takes the position that Ravichandran Oct 2021 discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to anticipate instant claims 7-9.
With respect to instant claim 11, Ravichandran Oct 2021 clearly discloses that UV curing is a known solidification process in the art (Introduction), including with respect to direct ink writing processes (Section 3.1.4), and hence, the Examiner takes the position that Ravichandran Oct 2021 discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to anticipate instant claim 11.
Claims 1-3 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ravichandran (Multi-material 3D printing-enabled multilayers for smart actuation via magnetic and thermal stimuli, hereinafter referred to as “Ravichandran July 2022” which includes additional authors other than the joint inventors of the present application). Ravichandran July 2022 specifically discloses a method of fabricating a UV cured stimuli-responsive object by an additive manufacturing process, wherein the method comprises providing a first feedstock A and a second feedstock B to a print head, wherein the first feedstock A, the second feedstock B, or both comprise one or more stimuli-responsive polymer composites as in instant claim 1, namely TPU with polycaprolactone (PCL) for thermal actuation (as in instant claims 5-8) and with iron oxide (Fe2O3) nanoparticles for magnetic actuation (as in instant claims 7-10), and the print head comprises n multipliers; extruding a multi-sublayer extrudate from the print head, wherein the multi-sublayer extrudate comprises 2(n+1) alternating layers (as in instant claim 2) of the first feedstock and the second feedstock, or more particularly, “wherein the multi-sublayer extrudate comprises 2(n+1)/2 sublayers of the first feedstock and 2(n+1)/2 sublayers of the second feedstock, and 2(n+1)/2 - 1 sublayers of the first feedstock are in direct contact with two sublayers of the second feedstock” as in instant claim 1 (as evidenced by Fig. 1); depositing the multi-sublayer extrudate on a printing platform (“substrate”) to yield an extrudate layer; and UV curing the multilayer extrudate (as in instant claim 11) to yield the stimuli-responsive object (Entire document, particularly Abstract; Experimental; Fig. 1; Conclusion); and given that Ravichandran July 2022 also discloses depositing an additional extrudate layer on the cured first extrudate layer to produce a laminate as shown in Fig. 1, as in instant claim 3, Ravichandran July 2022 anticipates instant claims 1-3 and 5-11.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ravichandran (3D-printed in-line and out-of-plane layers with stimuli-responsive intelligence, hereinafter referred to as “Ravichandran Oct 2022” which includes additional authors other than the joint inventors of the present application). Ravichandran Oct 2022 specifically discloses a method of fabricating a stimuli-responsive object by an additive manufacturing process, particularly a UV-assisted MDIW process, wherein the method comprises providing a first feedstock A and a second feedstock B to a print head, wherein the first feedstock A, the second feedstock B, or both comprise one or more stimuli-responsive polymer composites as in instant claim 1, namely TPU with polycaprolactone for thermal actuation (as in instant claims 5-8) or TPU with iron oxide (Fe2O3) nanoparticles for magnetic actuation (as in instant claims 7-10), and the print head comprises n multipliers; extruding a multi-sublayer extrudate from the print head, wherein the multi-sublayer extrudate comprises 2(n+1) alternating layers (as in instant claim 2) of the first feedstock and the second feedstock, or more particularly, “wherein the multi-sublayer extrudate comprises 2(n+1)/2 sublayers of the first feedstock and 2(n+1)/2 sublayers of the second feedstock, and 2(n+1)/2 - 1 sublayers of the first feedstock are in direct contact with two sublayers of the second feedstock” as in instant claim 1 (as evidenced by Fig. 1); depositing the multi-sublayer extrudate on a glass substrate to yield an extrudate layer; and UV curing the multilayer extrudate (as in instant claim 11) to yield the stimuli-responsive object (Entire document, particularly Abstract; Sections 2-3; Fig. 1; Table 1); and given that Ravichandran Oct 2022 also discloses rotating the substrate to deposit an additional extrudate layer on the cured first extrudate layer, wherein the additional layer comprises 2(n+1) sublayers aligned in a direction transverse to the 2(n+1) sublayers of the first extrudate layer as shown in Figs 1.(b)-(d) as in instant claims 3-4, Ravichandran Oct 2022 anticipates instant claims 1-11.
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.
Alternatively, claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11 as well as claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravichandran Oct 2021, as applied to claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11 above, and further discussed below.
The teachings of Ravichandran Oct 2021 are discussed in detail above and although the Examiner is of the position that the reference is anticipatory for the reasons discussed above given that the PVA/MWNT composite referenced by Ravichandran Oct 2021 with respect to the MDIW process discussed in Section 3.1.5 is broadly a “stimulus-responsive” polymer composite, the Examiner alternatively takes the position that instant claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11 would have been obvious over the teachings of Ravichandran Oct 2021 given that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize any of the polymer nanocomposite materials taught by Ravichandran Oct 2021, including TPU composites, polymer composites comprising magnetic nanoparticles, or any of the stimuli-responsive polymer composite materials taught by Ravichandran Oct 2021, in any of the 3D printing processes described by Ravichandran Oct 2021, including the MDIW process of Section 3.1.5, to produce a 4D printed object for a desired end use such that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant clams 1-5, 7-9, and 11 (alternatively) would have been obvious over the teachings of Ravichandran Oct 2021.
With respect to instant claim 6, Ravichandran Oct 2021 teaches that a broad selection of polymer materials may be utilized in the processes and although Ravichandran Oct 2021 does not specifically teach polycaprolactone (PCL), given that Ravichandran Oct 2021 does teach polylactic acid (PLA) - a similar biodegradable polyester to PCL, wherein PCL is a known functionally equivalent biodegradable polyester to PLA, and that Ravichandran Oct 2021 does not limit the polymer to be utilized as the matrix material in the printed composites (pp. 52283-52284), the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 6 would have been obvious over Ravichandran Oct 2021 given that it is prima facie obviousness to simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Similarly, with respect to instant claim 10, although Ravichandran Oct 2021 teaches that various nanoparticles may be utilized in the printed composites including magnetic materials as well as metal oxide nanoparticles, Ravichandran Oct 2021 does not specifically teach iron oxide nanoparticles as instantly claimed (Entire document, particularly Sections 2 and 4). However, given that iron oxide nanoparticles are an obvious species of metal oxide nanoparticles that provide magnetic properties in the art, the Examiner takes the position that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 10 would have been obvious over the teachings of Ravichandran Oct 2021 given that it is prima facie obviousness to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success and/or prima facie obviousness to simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boydston (US2017/0225395A1) in view of Ravichandran Sept 2021 or Ravichandran Oct 2021.
Boydston teaches three-dimensional printed mechanoresponsive materials and related methods therefor, wherein in general, functional and responsive polymeric materials, i.e., smart materials, can be advantageously used in additive manufacturing processes (Abstract, Paragraph 0008), with smart materials including those as recited in Paragraph 0008. Boydston teaches that in one aspect, the method includes depositing onto a substrate a material including a blend of a mechanochromic molecule and a matrix polymer to produce an article from the blend via an additive manufacturing process, wherein the mechanochromic molecule has first and second ends and includes at least one polymer chain covalently bound to each end (Paragraphs 0011 and 0293-0297); while in another aspect, rather than forming a blend with a mechanochromic molecule and one or more matrix polymers and then producing an article from the blend via additive manufacturing, the blend can be formed from the polymerization of mechanochromic molecule precursors and the polymerization of matrix polymer precursors in-situ during additive manufacturing such as by UV irradiation (as in instant claim 11; Paragraphs 0012 and 0298-0300). Boydston teaches that suitable polymers for the two or more polymers bound to the ends of the mechanochromic molecule include polyurethanes (PU), polyvinyl alcohol (e.g., as in Ravichandran Sept 2021 or Ravichandran Oct 2021), polylactic acid (PLA), and polycaprolactone (PCL) (as in instant claims 5-8; Paragraphs 0034, 0036, 0098, 0127, 0139, 0186, 0203, 0253, 0266, and 0303); while the matrix polymer may be PLA, PU, and in the case of in-situ polymerization, PCL (as in instant claims 5-8; Paragraphs 0293-0294 and 0298-0301). Boydston teaches that the additive manufacturing method to produce an article from the mechanoresponsive materials “can include, for example, selective laser sintering (e.g., for the fusing step), fused filament fabrication (e.g., for the depositing and fusing steps), and jetting the material by material jetting, binder jetting, or inkjet printing (e.g., for the deposition step)” (Paragraph 0304), and that the method can use 3D printers that can fabricate parts from thermoplastics and which can be adapted to print advanced polymers including stimulus-responsive materials (Paragraphs 0305). Boydston teaches that a variety of articles or devices can be made using the described materials via additive manufacturing processes, such as an article including mechanochromic regions embedded within a matrix polymer where a portion or all of the device exhibits color changes in response to mechanical stimulus, or an article including a mixture of regions such as regions that are mechanochromic and regions that can change color when exposed to heat and/or light (Paragraphs 0308-0312), wherein the use of 3D printing enables rapid production of binary materials such as encased mechanoresponsive materials within commercial or control polymers – materials that would generally be difficult or impossible to prepare with other manufacturing techniques (Paragraph 0339); and although Boydston teaches an embodiment wherein an article is produced from binary materials by 3D printing in a single session including providing a first feedstock and a second feedstock to a print head having two extrusion heads and using a dual extrusion technique to extrude a striped specimen of dual-responsive materials with segregated stimuli-responsive regions or “sublayers” as in the claimed invention with each sublayer of the first feedstock in direct contact with two sublayers of the second feedstock to yield an extrudate layer on a build platform or “substrate”, and curing of the extrudate layer to yield a stimuli-responsive object (Entire document, particularly Figs. 5A-D, Paragraphs 0006-0007, Examples), Boydston does not teach that the print head comprises n multipliers and that the extrudate from the print head is a multi-sublayer extrudate comprising 2(n+1)/2 sublayers of the first feedstock and 2(n+1)/2 sublayers of the second feedstock with 2(n+1)/2 - 1 sublayers of the first feedstock in direct contact with two sublayers of the second feedstock as instantly claimed.
However, given that each of Ravichandran Sept 2021 and Ravichandran Oct 2021, as discussed in detail above and incorporated herein by references, teaches an additive manufacturing process suitable for 3D printing of thermoplastic polymer composites, as in Boydston, wherein two feedstocks can be printed simultaneously in a similar striped pattern and/or 3D structure as in the invention taught by Boydston utilizing a multiphase direct ink writing process wherein the print head comprises n multipliers and the extrudate from the print head is a multi-sublayer extrudate comprising 2(n+1)/2 sublayers of the first feedstock and 2(n+1)/2 sublayers of the second feedstock with 2(n+1)/2 - 1 sublayers of the first feedstock in direct contact with two sublayers of the second feedstock as instantly claimed, particularly as in instant claims 1-4, providing an easier and more controlled way of fabricating multiphased and multilayered composites (Entire documents, particularly those sections as cited above and Conclusion sections). Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the 3D printing process and printing head with n multipliers as taught by Ravichandran Sept 2021 or Ravichandran Oct 2021 to produce the 3D printed stimuli-responsive articles taught by Boydston, thereby rendering the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1-8 and 11 obvious over the teachings of Boydston in view of Ravichandran Sept 2021 or Ravichandran Oct 2021 given that it is prima facie obviousness to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Further, with respect to instant claims 9-10, although Boydston teaches that the printed stimuli-responsive articles may also include regions that can change when exposed to a stimulus other than a mechanical stimulus, such as heat and/or light, Boydston does not specifically teach that such other stimulus is, for example, a magnetic stimulus acting upon magnetic or iron oxide nanoparticles dispersed in said regions. However, given that each of Ravichandran Sept 2021 and Ravichandran Oct 2021 teaches that the 3D printing process depositing the multi-sublayer extrudate via the printing head comprising n multipliers is suitable for 3D printing of polymer/nanoparticle composite materials, with Ravichandran Oct 2021 specifically teaching nanoparticles having magnetic properties and/or being magnetically responsive (p. 52276-52277 and Section 4), and that it is well established in the art that incorporation of iron oxide nanoparticles into a “smart” polymer composite provides faster remote actuated and magnetically guidable properties (as evidenced by Wei, Direct-Write Fabrication of 4D Active Shape-Changing Structures Based on a Shape Memory Polymer and Its Nanocomposite, Abstract, cited on IDS dated 1/5/2026), the Examiner takes the position that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 9-10 would have been obvious over the teachings of Boydston in view of Ravichandran Sept 2021 or Ravichandran Oct 2021 given that it would have been obvious to incorporate magnetic nanoparticles such as iron oxide nanoparticles into the other regions of the invention taught by Boydston in view of Ravichandran Sept 2021 or Ravichandran Oct 2021 to provide regions that may be easily and externally actuated by a magnetic stimulus as is typical in the art given that it is prima facie obviousness to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and/or prima facie obviousness to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Citation of pertinent prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Feng (WO2020/143269A1, machine translation attached) teaches a 4D printing method for a double-layer structure based on a temperature response, wherein the “method comprises: selecting a shape memory polymer material, and by using a double-layer structure as a unit, repeatedly laminating and performing printing from bottom to top, wherein the double-layer structure is formed by laminating and printing two groups of different fill pattern layers in an up-down direction.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays from 10:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/MONIQUE R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787