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 claims 3-4, 8-14, 17-22, 26-27, 29, and 31-33 in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 39 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/17/2025.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lewicki (US 2018/0243988 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Lewicki teaches a method of forming a three-dimensional (3D) polymeric article, the method comprising providing a polymeric solution comprising a thermosetting resin dissolved in a solvent and a crosslinking catalyst or initiator dissolved in the solvent (thermoset epoxy resin includes an epoxy component and a catalyst component; wherein an aromatic epoxy molecule based on a Bis-phenyl F diglycidyl ether core that may be chemical modified with other chemical functionality or partially polymerized to form a higher viscosity oligomer with formaldehyde) (¶0037-0042,0059).
Lewicki teaches a method further comprising providing a non-solvent, wherein the solvent is miscible in the non-solvent, and the thermosetting resin is insoluble in the non-solvent and injecting the polymeric solution into the non-solvent in a pre-determined 3D pattern, thereby precipitating the thermosetting resin from the polymeric solution in the non-solvent as a solid polymeric material to provide a curable 3D resin article (build area within a bunded fluid tight bath which may be as simple as a walled dish placed on top of the build platen it is possible to print within this fluid tight ‘bund’ and if the structures being printed are reliant on rheological stabilization to maintain their structures prior to a curing phase; valve controlled entrance for infill resin) (Fig 5 and ¶0064-0082). Examiner notes that the formaldehyde solvent is miscible in the resin infill non-solvent.
Lewicki teaches a method further comprising crosslinking the curable 3D resin article, thereby curing the thermosetting resin and forming the 3D polymeric article (UV source can irradiate build volume enclosed) (¶0080).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 4, 8-13, 17, 26-27, 29, and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alimperti (US 2021/0260249 A1) in view of Lewis (US 2017/0151733 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Alimperti discloses a computer-controlled method for room-temperature printing a composition-controlled product using 3D printing (a method of forming a composite three-dimensional (3D) polymeric article), includes disposing a liquid reactant composition in a reservoir, the liquid reactant composition comprising a liquid phase comprising a polymer material dissolved in a solvent (providing a polymeric solution comprising a polymer dissolved in a solvent), the polyvinyl material selected from a group consisting of polyvinyl butyral (PVB) and polycaprolactone (PCL), the solvent selected from a group consisting of Ethanol (EtOH) and Tetrahydrofuran (THF); at room temperature, extruding the liquid reactant composition by a computer controlling a motor-driven syringe extruder having an exit nozzle of diameter less than or equal to 210 microns; scanning, under control of the computer, a liquid reactant exit nozzle over a substrate while maintaining the substrate fully submerged in an aqueous bath (providing a non-solvent, wherein the solvent is miscible in the non-solvent, and the polymer is insoluble in the non-solvent); and depositing the liquid reactant composition onto the substrate, wherein the solvent evaporates to produce, under influence of a hardening accelerator, a biocompatible hydroxyapatite/polymer composite scaffold (injecting the polymeric solution into the non-solvent in a pre-determined 3D pattern, thereby precipitating the polymer from the polymeric solution in the non-solvent as a solid polymeric matrix material to provide the composite 3D polymeric article) (Fig 3 and ¶0012,0059).
Alimperti does not teach and a reinforcement or filler dispersed in the solvent, wherein the reinforcement or filler distributed throughout the matrix, nor wherein the reinforcement or filler is selected from the group consisting of multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT), single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNT), metal powder, aramid nanofibers, nanowires.
However, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned (formulations for 3D printing; see MPEP 2141.01(a)), Lewis discloses a method wherein filament can be influenced or determined by the orientation of stiff, anisotropic particles within the filament (¶0029). The embedded anisotropic filler particles may take the form of nanowires (¶0029).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Alimperti by applying the known technique of filler particles may take the form of nanowires disclosed in Lewis to the polymeric matrix disclosed in Alimperti with predictable results and resulting in an improved method. MPEP 2143(D).
Regarding claims 8, 10, 12, 17, as applied to claim 4, Alimperti in view of Lewis do not explicitly teach wherein the polymer is poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVDF); wherein the reinforcement or filler comprises aramid nanofibers; nor wherein the solvent comprises N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF); wherein the non-solvent comprises water.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Alimperti in view of Lewis such that the polymer is poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVDF); the reinforcement or filler comprises aramid nanofibers; the solvent comprises N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF); and the non-solvent comprises water with a reasonable expectation of success since the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claims 11, 13, 26-27, 29, and 32, as applied to claim 4, Alimperti in view of Lewis do not explicitly teach wherein the reinforcement or filler comprises multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT) present in an amount of 0.005 wt. % to about 8 wt. %, based on the total weight of the polymeric solution; wherein the polymer is present in a concentration of at least about 10 wt. %, based on the total weight of the polymeric solution; wherein the non-solvent has a temperature of about 20° C. to about 80° C.; wherein the non-solvent comprises up to about 8 wt. % of a salt, based on the total weight of the non-solvent; curing the 3D polymeric article at a curing temperature in a range of about 100° C. to about 200° C; and wherein directly printed polymeric material forming the 3D polymeric article has a density that is at least 20% of the density of a fully dense material formed from the polymer.
However, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05(II). It would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success since Alimperti in view of Lewis teaches a reinforcement or filler and a polymer present in the polymeric solution as well as the solvent and nonsolvent. Examiner notes that the amount of filler and polymer in the polymeric solution effects the mechanical properties of the final 3D polymeric article.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Alimperti in view of Lewis such that the reinforcement or filler comprises multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT) present in an amount of 0.005 wt. % to about 8 wt. %, based on the total weight of the polymeric solution; the polymer is present in a concentration of at least about 10 wt. %, based on the total weight of the polymeric solution; the non-solvent has a temperature of about 20° C. to about 80° C.; the non-solvent comprises up to about 8 wt. % of a salt, based on the total weight of the non-solvent; curing the 3D polymeric article at a curing temperature in a range of about 100° C. to about 200° C; and directly printed polymeric material forming the 3D polymeric article has a density that is at least 20% of the density of a fully dense material formed from the polymer through routine optimization with a reasonable expectation of success to control the mechanical properties of the final product.
Regarding claim 31, as applied to claim 4, Alimperti in view of Lewis teaches a method wherein the method is free of solvent evaporation (see rejection of claim 4).
Regarding claim 33, as applied to claim 4, Alimperti in view of Lewis teaches the polymeric solution comprises the reinforcement or filler initially dispersed in the solvent and distributed throughout the solid polymeric matrix in the nanocomposite (see rejection of claim 4 above).
While Alimperti in view of Lewis teaches a 3D polymeric article, Alimperti in view of Lewis does not specify the 3D polymeric article is in the form of a piezoelectric flexible conductor nanocomposite.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method of Alimperti in view of Lewis such that the 3D polymeric article is in the form of a piezoelectric flexible conductor nanocomposite, since it has been held that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)-(B).
Alimperti in view of Lewis do not explicitly teach wherein the polymer comprises poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVDF) as the polymer and a solid polymeric matrix.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Alimperti in view of Lewis such that the polymer comprises poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVDF) as the polymer and a solid polymeric matrix with a reasonable expectation of success since the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alimperti (US 2021/0260249 A1) in view of Lewis (US 2017/0151733 A1), as applied to claim 4, and in further view of Fripp (US 2016/0263827 A1).
Regarding claim 14, as applied to claim 4, Alimperti in view of Lewis do not explicitly teach wherein the polymeric solution further comprises an additive selected from the group consisting of an emulsifier, a surfactant, a dispersant, a colorant, polyvinylpyrrolidone, and combinations thereof.
However, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned (polymeric solutions comprising additives; see MPEP 2141.01(a)), Fripp discloses a method wherein cross-linking polymers may be deposited via a nozzle and wherein color additives may be added to different grades of catalyst or hardener to achieve the desired attributes of the component (¶0042-0043-0141).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Alimperti in view of Lewis by applying the known technique of cross-linking polymers wherein color additives may be added to different grades of catalyst or hardener to achieve the desired attributes of the component disclosed in Fripp to the polymeric solution disclosed in Alimperti in view of Lewis with predictable results and resulting in an improved method. MPEP 2143(D).
Claims 18-22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alimperti (US 2021/0260249 A1) in view of Lewis (US 2017/0151733 A1), as applied to claim 4, and in further view of Lewicki (US 2018/0243988 A1).
Regarding claims 18 and 20, as applied to claim 4, Alimperti in view of Lewis teaches performing the method using an additive manufacturing apparatus comprising a reservoir comprising the non-solvent; an injection head adapted to deliver the polymeric solution into the non-solvent in the reservoir (see rejection of claim 4 above).
Alimperti in view of Lewis does not teach a printing substrate immersed in the non-solvent nor wherein the additive manufacturing apparatus comprises the temperature control means.
However, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned (additive manufacturing apparatus; see MPEP 2141.01(a)), Lewicki discloses an additive manufacturing apparatus comprising a printing substrate immersed in the non-solvent (build platform 504) and a temperature control means (thermal source to evenly heat the build volume enclosed (Fig 5 and ¶0064-0082).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Alimperti in view of Lewis by applying the known technique of an additive manufacturing apparatus comprising a printing substrate immersed in the non-solvent (build platform) and a temperature control means (thermal source) disclosed in Lewicki to the additive manufacturing apparatus disclosed in Alimperti in view of Lewis with predictable results and resulting in an improved method. MPEP 2143(D).
Regarding claim 19, as applied to claim 18, Alimperti in view of Lewis and Lewicki do not explicitly teach wherein the printing substrate is a film coating comprising the polymer of the polymeric solution.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Alimperti in view of Lewis and Lewicki such that the printing substrate is a film coating comprising the polymer of the polymeric solution. with a reasonable expectation of success since the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 21, as applied to claim 18, Alimperti in view of Lewis and Lewicki teach wherein the injection head comprises a dispensing needle (see rejection of claim 4).
Although Alimperti in view of Lewis and Lewicki does not specify the diameter of the dispensing needle, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Alimperti in view of Lewis and Lewicki such that the dispensing needle has a diameter of about 24-gauge (305 μm) to about 30-gauge (150 μm), since it has been held that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)-(B).
Regarding claim 22, as applied to claim 18, Alimperti in view of Lewis and Lewicki teach wherein injecting the polymeric solution into the non-solvent comprises contacting the injection head and the printing substrate to apply a first layer of the polymer to the printing substrate and applying a plurality of layers of the polymer, each layer being applied to a previous layer, until the 3D polymeric article is formed (see rejection of claim 4).
Alimperti in view of Lewis and Lewicki do not explicitly teach wherein each layer of the plurality of layers is applied at a continuous printing speed of about 5 mm/s to about 12 mm/s; each layer of the plurality of layers has a thickness of about 0.03 mm to about 1 mm; and each layer of the plurality of layers is applied at a pressure of about 1.0 psi (6.9 kPa) to about 30.0 psi (207 kPa).
However, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05(II). It would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success since Alimperti in view of Lewis and Lewicki teaches applying a plurality of layers of the polymer.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Alimperti in view of Lewis and Lewicki such that each layer of the plurality of layers is applied at a continuous printing speed of about 5 mm/s to about 12 mm/s; each layer of the plurality of layers has a thickness of about 0.03 mm to about 1 mm; and each layer of the plurality of layers is applied at a pressure of about 1.0 psi (6.9 kPa) to about 30.0 psi (207 kPa) through routine optimization with a reasonable expectation of success to control thickness of the final product.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JaMel M Nelson whose telephone number is (571)272-8174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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, Galen Hauth can be reached on (571) 270-5516. 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.
/JAMEL M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743