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 .
Claim Interpretation
In claim 29 and in the instant specification [0010, 0025, 0142], a “macroscale for engineering applications” range is not disclosed. However, ‘macroscale’ is commonly defined as ‘visible without magnification’, or greater than roughly 0.1mm. Claim 29 will be examined accordingly.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group III, claims 13-31 & 33 in the reply filed on 1/5/2026 is acknowledged. The Applicant states the traversal is on the ground(s) that the prior art search between groups substantially overlap, and that issues regarding patentability are the same for these claim sets. This is not found persuasive because search strategies and classifications between product (group I) and method (group III) claims can vary significantly. Prior art searches between a PDMS-precursor pyrolysis process (group II) and a precursor & ink printing process using a 3D printer (group III) will have a significantly different classification search. This creates an undue burden to the Examiner due to a limited time allotted for examination. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the issues regarding patentability between groups I, II and III are the same, because of their significant art search and claim scope differences.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-12 & 32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/5/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 14, 15, 25 & 29 are objected to because of the following informalities: typographical and grammatical errors.
In claim 14, line 2, it is suggested to amend the term “shapes” to “shape”.
In claim 15, lines 2-3, it is suggested to amend the phrase “an reversed morphed shape” to “a reversed morphed shape”.
In claim 25, line 2, it is suggested to amend the term “multistation” to “multi-station”.
In claim 29, line 1, it is suggested to amend to “wherein the size of”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 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 non-obviousness.
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 13-19, 21-24, 26-31 & 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (US20230115347A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
13. A method of four dimensional (4D) printing of shape memory ceramics, the method comprising: two/three dimensional (2D/3D) printing a structure of a material comprising an ink and a precursor; treating the structure with ultraviolet ozone to create a heterogeneous precursor, wherein a treated portion of heterogeneous precursor has a different coefficient of thermal expansion or a different thermal shrinkage ratio from a remaining portion of the heterogeneous precursor; heating the heterogeneous precursor, wherein a difference in the coefficient of thermal expansion or the thermal shrinkage ratio between the treated portion of the heterogeneous precursor and the remaining portion of the heterogeneous precursor creates an interface stress to cause a selected level of deformation, resulting in a first-generation ceramic; and heating the first-generation ceramic, wherein heterogeneity in a thermal shrinkage or a thermal expansion behavior of the first-generation ceramic resulted in original/reverse multimode shape memory behaviors and receramization into a second-generation ceramic.
With respect to claim 13, the prior art of Lu teaches a method of four dimensional (4D) printing of shape memory ceramics, the method comprising: two/three dimensional (2D/3D) printing a structure of a material comprising an ink and a precursor [0004]; treating the structure with ultraviolet ozone to create a heterogeneous precursor [0005], wherein a treated portion of heterogeneous precursor has a different coefficient of thermal expansion or a different thermal shrinkage ratio from a remaining portion of the heterogeneous precursor [0006]; and heating the heterogeneous precursor, wherein a difference in the coefficient of thermal expansion or the thermal shrinkage ratio between the treated portion of the heterogeneous precursor and the remaining portion of the heterogeneous precursor creates an interface stress to cause a selected level of deformation [0028, Claim 1], resulting in a first-generation ceramic. Due to the different thermal shrinkage and expansion behaviors of heterogenous structural precursors, the ceramic precursor will transform in both shape configuration and material components under thermal treatment. Before the ceramization, the difference in thermal expansion coefficients of different materials in the precursor resulted in a ‘first-state’ shape transformation [0029].
Lu does not explicitly teach heating a ceramic using the terms ‘a first-generation ceramic’ to form ‘a second-generation ceramic’.
However, Lu teaches heating a first-state ceramic, wherein heterogeneity in a thermal shrinkage or a thermal expansion behavior of the first-state ceramic could result in original/reverse multimode shape memory behaviors [0043] and receramization into a second-state ceramic [0029].
Lu teaches different heating processes result in different results in the ceramic product shape and material component configuration (Figs. 3f, 3g; [0010]), with good repeatability (Fig. 10c; [0030]) and consistency with FEA simulation results [0010]; therefore, as understood by the Examiner, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that the ceramic could be reheated with the desired heating process to form the desired product shape and material composition of a second generation ceramic.
14. The method of claim 13, wherein the first-generation ceramic is reversibly reconfigurable to an original shape of the heterogeneous precursor under appropriate heating conditions, resulting in a second-generation ceramic with original shape memory behavior.
With respect to claim 14, as set forth in the rejection of claim 13, Lu teaches the first-generation ceramic is reversibly reconfigurable to an original shape of the heterogeneous precursor under appropriate heating conditions, resulting in a second-generation ceramic with original shape memory behavior [0029, 0043].
The testing results of the heating processes taught by Lu would have made it prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that the ceramic could be reheated with the desired heating process to form desired product shapes and material compositions of a second generation ceramic.
Lu does not explicitly teach reheating to result in a second-generation ceramic with reversibly configured original shape memory behavior.
However, trail and error experimentation, and/or aided by the FEA simulation software taught by Lu, could prima facie obviously lead to the reversed product shape and material composition of a second generation ceramic, reversibly configured with its original shape memory behavior.
15. The method of claim 14, wherein the second-generation ceramic with original shape memory behavior is further morphed in an opposite direction to a reverse morphed shape of the first-generation ceramic under appropriate heating conditions, resulting in a second-generation ceramic with reverse shape memory behavior.
With respect to claim 15, as set forth in the rejection of claim 14, Lu teaches the second-generation ceramic with original shape memory behavior is further morphed in an opposite direction to a reverse morphed shape of the first-generation ceramic under appropriate heating conditions, resulting in a second-generation ceramic with reverse shape memory behavior.
Lu teaches developing precursors with shape memory behaviors for in situ 4D printing of high-temperature materials [0043].
From these heating processes taught by Lu would have made it prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that the shape memory ceramic could be reheated with the desired heating process, with reheating processes followed using the FEA simulation software taught by Lu, or by trail and error, to lead to the reversed product shape and material composition of a second generation ceramic.
16. The method of claim 13, wherein the heating of the first-generation ceramic is local and provides flexibility for local receramization and self-morphing of the first-generation ceramic, resulting in a first/second-generation composite ceramic with multiple shapes.
With respect to claim 16, as set forth in the rejection of claim 13, Lu teaches the heating of the first-generation ceramic is local and provides flexibility for local receramization and self-morphing of the first-generation ceramic, resulting in a first/second-generation composite ceramic with multiple shapes.
It would have been prima facie obvious and commonly known to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that heat treatments can occur to sections of an article resulting in differences in shape and material composition between the affected and non-affected sections. It would also have been commonly known and prima facie obvious that phase-shifting can occur for a material at far smaller than a macroscopic area.
From this, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that the shape memory ceramic could be locally reheated with the desired heating process, with reheating processes followed using the FEA simulation software taught by Lu, or by trail and error, to lead to the local receramization to a multiple-shaped and material composition of a first / second generation ceramic.
17. The method of claim 13, wherein the treating of the structure with ultraviolet ozone to create a heterogeneous precursor is global treating of the structure or local treating of the structure assisted with a mask.
With respect to claim 17, Lu teaches the treating of the structure with ultraviolet ozone to create a heterogeneous precursor can be globally treating the structure [0022]; or as shown with a turbine blade embodiment, by selectively treating the structure by using a mask [0039].
18. The method of claim 13, further comprising removing a portion of the structure to create a shaped structure prior to or after the treating of the structure with ultraviolet ozone.
With respect to claim 18, Lu teaches removing a portion of the structure to create a shaped structure prior to or after the treating of the structure with ultraviolet ozone [Claim 3].
19. The method of claim 13, wherein the heating is performed by induction heating, resistance heating, or combinations thereof.
With respect to claim 19, Lu teaches the heating is performed by induction heating, resistance heating, or combinations thereof [Claim 4].
21. The method of claim 18, wherein the removal of a portion of the structure is by controlled laser beams.
With respect to claim 21, Lu teaches the removal of a portion of the structure is by controlled laser beams [Claim 11].
22. The method of claim 18, wherein the removal of a portion of the structure is by engraving, cutting, polishing, or combination thereof.
With respect to claim 22, Lu teaches the removal of a portion of the structure can be by engraving (See Fig. 2A; [0009]) or by cutting [Claim 11].
23. The method of claim 18, wherein the removal of a portion of the structure is by electron beam, high pressure liquids, or other controlled high energy flow, or combinations thereof.
With respect to claim 23, Lu teaches the removal of a portion of the structure is by electron beam, high pressure liquids, or other controlled high energy flow, or combinations thereof [Claims 11 & 12].
24. The method of claim 13, further comprising performing mass and rapid production of heterogeneous precursor materials using blade coating, laser cutting, or combination thereof.
With respect to claim 24, Lu teaches performing mass and rapid production of heterogeneous precursor materials using additive (3D printer) [0043] and subtractive (laser cutting) manufacturing [0027].
26. The method of claim 13, wherein the ink comprises polymers, or mixtures of polymers and particles; and wherein the particles are selected from one or more of ceramic particles or glass particles.
With respect to claim 26, Lu teaches the ink comprises polymers, or mixtures of polymers and particles; and wherein the particles are selected from one or more of ceramic particles or glass particles [0023].
27. The method of claim 13, wherein the precursor is selected from a poly(dimethylsiloxane), a polysiloxane, a polyborosiloxane, a polycarbosiloxane, a polysilazane or a poly(organosilylcarbodiimide), hydrogels, or combinations thereof.
With respect to claim 27, Lu teaches the precursor is selected from a poly(dimethylsiloxane), a polysiloxane, a polyborosiloxane, a polycarbosiloxane, a polysilazane or a poly(organosilylcarbodiimide), hydrogels, or combinations thereof [Claim 5].
28. The method of claim 26, wherein the ceramic particles are selected from one or more of zirconia (ZrO2), Aluminum oxynitride (AlON), alumina (Al2O3), titania (TiO2), silicon nitride (Si3N4), calcium oxide (CaO), silicon carbide (SiC), yttria (Y2O3), or aluminum nitride (AlN) particles.
With respect to claim 28, Lu teaches the ceramic particles are selected from one or more of zirconia (ZrO2), Aluminum oxynitride (AlON), alumina (Al2O3), titania (TiO2), silicon nitride (Si3N4), calcium oxide (CaO), silicon carbide (SiC), yttria (Y2O3), or aluminum nitride (AlN) particles [Claim 7].
29. The method of claim 13, wherein size of shape memory ceramics is of macroscale for engineering applications.
With respect to claim 29, Lu teaches size of shape memory ceramics is of macroscale for engineering applications, as articles as large as 12cm can be produced [0004, 0034].
30. The method of claim 13, wherein the 2D/3D printing is selected from material extrusion (direct ink writing), blade coating, material jetting, photopolymerization, powder bed fusion, or combinations thereof.
With respect to claim 30, Lu teaches the 2D/3D printing can be from material extrusion (direct ink writing) [0036].
31. The method of claim 13, further comprising physical vapor deposition, chemical vapor deposition, atomic layer deposition, or combinations thereof.
With respect to claim 31, Lu teaches physical vapor deposition, chemical vapor deposition, atomic layer deposition, or combinations thereof [Claim 13].
33. A method for on-orbit manufacture and repair comprising the method of 4D printing of shape memory ceramics of claim 13.
With respect to claim 33, the prior art of Lu teaches a method for on-orbit manufacture and repair comprising the method of 4D printing of shape memory ceramics of claim 13 [0032].
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (20230115347A1), as set forth above in the rejection of claim 24, and further in view of Bi (CN206383502U).
25. The method of claim 24, wherein the performance of mass and rapid production of heterogeneous precursor materials is assisted by a multi-station turntable system.
With respect to claim 25, as set forth in the rejection of claim 24, Lu teaches the performance of mass and rapid production of heterogeneous precursor materials.
Lu is silent on any type of conveying system to transfer a workpiece between manufacturing components to form a 3D-printed SMC - such as generic conveyor belts, transfer robots, or multi-station turntable systems.
However, the prior art of Bi teaches a 3D printing system that includes a multi-station turntable conveyor (Fig. 2, item 1) for transferring a workpiece form one 3D printing manufacturing station to another [P. 2, ¶ 1-5].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use the known technique of a generic multi-station turntable conveyor, taught by Bi, to improve the 3D-printed SMC process of Lu, in the same way; by providing a means to transfer a workpiece between manufacturing components by use of the rotating turntable. The use of a generic rotating turntable to convey a workpiece from one manufacturing component station to another would prima facie obviously be motivated by a desire for automating conveyance in the 3D-printed SMC process of Lu, and could also be based on available equipment and/or floor space considerations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 20, no prior art was found to modify Lu to teach the heating is performed in air to obtain the second-generation ceramic.
With respect to claim 20, Lu teaches the heating can be performed in argon gas to obtain the (first-generation) ceramic [0037]. Lu is silent on heating with air.
No prior art was discovered to teach that heating is performed in inert gas or vacuum conditions to obtain the first-generation ceramic, and in air to obtain the second-generation ceramic.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY C GROSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-1363. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM - 5PM.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on 571-270-7457. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GREGORY C. GROSSO
Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/GREGORY C. GROSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748