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
Claims 7-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 11/18/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because some text in Fig. 1, 2, and 3 is not legible. The drawings should be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84(l) and (p), excerpt below. Furthermore, Fig. 3 is not properly described in the instant specification as to the meaning of “100 µm”, “300 µm”, and “1 mm.”
(l) Character of lines, numbers, and letters. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
(p) Numbers, letters, and reference characters.
(1) Reference characters (numerals are preferred), sheet numbers, and view numbers must be plain and legible, and must not be used in association with brackets or inverted commas, or enclosed within outlines, e.g., encircled. They must be oriented in the same direction as the view so as to avoid having to rotate the sheet. Reference characters should be arranged to follow the profile of the object depicted.
(2) The English alphabet must be used for letters, except where another alphabet is customarily used, such as the Greek alphabet to indicate angles, wavelengths, and mathematical formulas.
(3) Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. They should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct.
(4) The same part of an invention appearing in more than one view of the drawing must always be designated by the same reference character, and the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.
(5) Reference characters not mentioned in the description shall not appear in the drawings. Reference characters mentioned in the description must appear in the drawings.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 3-6 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.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation strong and weak solvents” renders the claim indefinite. The term “strong” and “weak” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Although the instant specification gives an example of a strong and a weak solvent in paragraph [0013], it does not clearly provide a standard for judging all solvents as “strong” or “weak”. For purposes of examination, a solvent that dissolves the polymer is considered “strong”, while any solvent is considered “weak”.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination the items after the phrase “such as” are considered optional limitations.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao et al. (US 2020/0190268 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rao meets the claimed 3D printing method for creating temperature-resistant, low-wear, self-healing objects, (fabrication of macroscale components having desirable strength and fracture characteristics by performing additive manufacturing [0002]) comprising: forming a gel precursor from two solids that react to create a high-performance polymer when heated; ( more curing agents to one or more wavelengths of light, and/or heating [0015]) dissolving the gel precursor in a strong solvent to form a printable gel; ( the method includes adding a compound and curing agents to a solvent to form a physical gel [0011]) depositing the printable gel in thin layers ( depositing the precursor from the printer onto at least one of a surface or one or more layers of previously deposited precursor [0017]) using a dynamic control over material viscosity; (Examiner notes the claimed control of viscosity is given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Rao meets the step by teaching solvent concentration can be changed to influence deposition and printing [0059]) drying the printed gel via forced convection to remove the solvent; (extracting the solvent from the chemical gel [0014]) heating the dried gel to its cure temperature (during the thermal curing step of the multi-stage process, the thermal crosslinker can harden the chemical gel 200 to form a hard composite (not shown), [0069]) and repeating the process for each subsequent layer deposited. ( repeating the depositing, exposing, and extracting actions to form a three-dimensional part, [0017])
Rao does not explicitly teach to melt, cure, and re-harden it into a high- performance vitrimer.
Rao teaches the thermal curing agent can cause the gel to harden when exposed to elevated temperatures above room temperature during the multi-stage, or dual cure, process. During the thermal curing step of the multi-stage process, the thermal crosslinker can harden the chemical gel 200 to form a hard composite (not shown), [0069]. Rao teaches the two stages of the thermal cure can occur at varying temperatures and/or pressures, and can be performed over varying amounts of time based on the compounds used in making the nanocomposite [0080].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to melt, cure, and re-harden it into a high- performance vitrimer the chemical gel of Rao in order to optimize the microstructure and allow customization of the composite, se [0085]-[0086].
Regarding claim 6, Rao meets the claimed method of claim 1 method of claim 1, further comprising: adding particulate or liquid additives, ( a thermal and UV crosslinker(s), nanoparticles, [0038]) such as lubricant powders, pigments, or catalysts, to modulate material properties; and introducing the additives at any stage of the process prior to deposition.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao et al. (US 2020/0190268 A1) in view of Lamoncha (US 11,964,437 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Rao meets the claimed method of claim 1 further comprising: blending strong and weak solvents to form the as-deposited material; (Rao teaches the solvent used can be a polar solvent, such as dimethylformamide, as polar solvents can serve as strong dispersants of cellulose nanocomposites, and other solvents having rapid evaporation capabilities can also be used [0040])
Rao does not teach and introducing the solvents into the printing process through separate feed mechanisms and mixing prior to extrusion to control the flow and solidification rate of the material.
Rao teaches control the rate at which a solvent released by the syringe 120 evaporates or extrudate is ejected from the nozzles 110, [0041].
Lamoncha teaches a solvent 130 may be mixed with build material 114 in the mixing chamber 120 prior to deposit to form a bodied solvent, and the control device 117 may control the volume, concentration, or other amount of solvent 130 to be mixed with build material 114 in the mixing chamber 120, see Col. 7, lines 27-30.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the method of mixing a solvent in a mixing chamber prior to deposition of Lamoncha with the 3D printing method of Rao to optimize the dissolution or poor melding of printed materials, see Col. 7, lines 30-35.
Regarding claim 4, Rao as modified does not teach the method of Claim 3, wherein the strong solvent is mixed with a high concentration of uncured polymer precursor to form an Oligomer solution, and the weak solvent is mixed with a soluble catalyst to form a Catalyst solution, and wherein the two solutions are blended together in real time by the feed mechanism at a ratio of about 75% weak solvent to about 25% strong solvent.
Rao teaches control the rate at which a solvent released by the syringe 120 evaporates or extrudate is ejected from the nozzles 110, [0041].
Lamoncha meets the claimed wherein the strong solvent is mixed with a high concentration of uncured polymer precursor to form an Oligomer solution, and the weak solvent is mixed with a soluble catalyst to form a Catalyst solution, and wherein the two solutions are blended together in real time by the feed mechanism at a ratio of about 75% weak solvent to about 25% strong solvent.
Lamoncha teaches a solvent 130 may be mixed with build material 114 in the mixing chamber 120 prior to deposit to form a bodied solvent, and the control device 117 may control the volume, concentration, or other amount of solvent 130 to be mixed with build material 114 in the mixing chamber 120, see Col. 7, lines 27-30.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the method of mixing a solvent in a mixing chamber prior to deposition of Lamoncha with the 3D printing method of Rao to optimize the amount of solvent to meet the ratio of about 75% weak solvent to about 25% strong solvent to optimize the dissolution or poor melding of printed materials, see Col. 7, lines 30-35.
Regarding claim 5, Rao as modified does not teach the method of method of claim 3, wherein the strong solvent mixture is diluted with the weak solvent solution during extrusion, allowing for direct control over the amount of solid and liquid in the material.
Rao teaches control the rate at which a solvent released by the syringe 120 evaporates or extrudate is ejected from the nozzles 110, [0041].
Lamoncha teaches a solvent 130 may be mixed with build material 114 in the mixing chamber 120 prior to deposit to form a bodied solvent, and the control device 117 may control the volume, concentration, or other amount of solvent 130 to be mixed with build material 114 in the mixing chamber 120, see Col. 7, lines 27-30.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the method of mixing a solvent in a mixing chamber prior to deposition of Lamoncha with the 3D printing method of Rao to achieve the claimed direct control over the amount of solid and liquid in the material. optimize the dissolution or poor melding of printed materials, see Col. 7, lines 30-35.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao et al. (US 2020/0190268 A1) in view of Waicukauski (US 2020/0102453 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Rao does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the gel precursor is an aromatic thermosetting co-polyester (ATSP) forming a vitrimer with dynamic covalent bonds.
Waicukauski teaches wherein the gel precursor is an aromatic thermosetting co-polyester (ATSP) forming a vitrimer with dynamic covalent bonds. ( inkjet printing, selective laser sintering (SLS), fused deposition modeling (FDM), [0097], using materials such as aromatic polyester carbonates [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to select the aromatic polyester of Waicukauski as the generic polymer of Rao because it can exhibit certain desirable mechanical properties such as suitable strength/modulus, relatively low weight, and improved dimensional stability, see [0019].
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Epstein (US 2025/0050585 A1) The viscosity of the coreactive components may be adjusted by the inclusion of a solvent, [0030]. The coreactive components may have a viscosity and temperature profile that may be adjusted for the particular deposition method used, such as mixing prior to deposition and/or inkjetting [0043].
Fan (US 2024/0260201 A1 ) teaches the reservoir 520 includes a mixture of the low CTE filler 522 and a solvent and/or a dispersing agent that enhances flow of the low CTE filler 522 from the reservoir 520 to the second nozzle 528 and/or enhances mixing/dispersion of the second ink 100c with/in the first ink 100b, [0031].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M. ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0467. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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.
/MICHAEL M. ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744