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 .
The amendment filed March 17, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-2 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Laidmae (US 2018/0073165).
Claim 1: Laidmae discloses a system for forming a polymer fiber (abstract). The system includes a reservoir for holding a polymer solution (fig. 1B; 101; ¶¶ 92-95); an emitter for emitting a jet of the polymer solution from the reservoir to form a polymer jet, whereby the polymer jet solidifies into a fiber (¶¶ 92-95); and a fiber guidance system including a phased array of transducers and a control system (¶¶ 92-95), the control system configured to direct the phased array of transducers to generate acoustic energy for creating an acoustic hologram operative to guide the polymer jet in space as the polymer jet is emitted from the emitter whereby the fiber is formed to correspond with the acoustic hologram generated by the phased array of transducers (¶¶ 92-95).
Claim 2: Laidmae discloses each of the transducers being an ultrasonic transducer (¶ 92).
Claim 6: Laidmae discloses the hologram being a dynamic acoustic hologram formed by the phased array of transducers along a travel length of the jet (¶ 92).
Claim 7: Laidmae discloses a driver configured to apply an electrostatic force to drive emission of the jet from the emitter (¶ 91).
Claim 8: Laidmae discloses the emitter is configured to emit the polymer jet along an emission axis (¶ 92).
Claim 9: Laidmae’s phased array includes a transducer layer with 16 transducer sectors arranged in an annular pattern around the jet’s axis (¶ 92).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laidmae (US 2018/0073165), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ferreira (US 2020/0284883).
Laidmae is silent as to circuit boards, microcontroller, gate driver or synchronization system. However, Ferreira discloses an acoustic system including circuit boards, a microcontroller, a gate driver and a synchronization system (¶¶ 458, 970, 4465). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have includes these components in designing an ultrasonic phased array system in view of well-known engineering practices in the field of acoustic arrays. The use of multiple planar array modules, distributed drivers, and synchronization is a straightforward scaling-up of Laidmae’s teachings, as taught by Ferreira.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laidmae (US 2018/0073165), as applied to claim 1 above.
Claim 17: Laidmae discloses an emitter, but is silent as to a plurality of emitters. However, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza 245 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 18: Laidmae discloses the hologram is operative to guide each of the jets in space (¶¶ 92-95).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “claim 1 requires the acoustic hologram to be ‘operative to guide the polymer jet in space as the polymer jet is emitted from the emitter,’ meaning the acoustic field acts on the jet during its flight from the emitter toward a collector. (Emphasis added.) This argument has been considered but is not persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the claim. Instant claim 1 does not require an acoustic field to act on the jet during its flight from the emitter toward a collector. The claim merely requires it being operative to guide the jet in space as the jet is emitted from the emitter. Laidmae’s ultrasound transducer fires upward to eject the fiber, thereby guiding the jet into space as the polymer jet is emitted from the emitter, which is no less than is required by claim 1. Features not recited in the claim cannot distinguish over the prior art See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability).
Applicant further argues “Nothing in paragraphs 92-95 discloses or suggests an acoustic field that exists in the space through which the jet travels after leaving the emitter.” This argument has been considered but is not persuasive because it is also not commensurate in scope with the claims. There is no requirement in claim 1 that an acoustic field exists in the space through which the jet travels after leaving the emitter.
Applicant also argues that “the Examiner cites no disclosure in Laidmae of an acoustic hologram, nor of a fiber being ‘formed to correspond with the acoustic hologram generated by the phased array of transducers’ as required by claim 1.” This argument has been considered but is not persuasive. An acoustic hologram is a spatially-structured acoustic field produced by a phased array. Laidmae’s 16-sector annular phased array, as described in paragraph 92, can introduce vorticity into the Taylor cone to make the extruding fiber helical, and can dynamically adjust tip angle and symmetry. Thus, the fiber of Laidmae is formed to correspond with the acoustic hologram generated by the phased array of transducers, which is no less than is required by claim 1.
Applicant further argues that “Laidmae’s fiber structure is determined by the Taylor cone geometry and the electrospinning parameters – not by any holographic pressure pattern through which the jet passes during flight.” This argument has been considered but is not persuasive because, as with the majority of the arguments described above, it is not commensurate in scope with the claims. The claims do not require a holographic pressure pattern through which the jet passes during flight; nor do the claims preclude determining fiber structure by a Taylor cone geometry and electrospinning parameters.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 10-11, 16 and 19-21 are 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the system as claimed, as discussed in the response filed March 17, 2026.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY THROWER whose telephone number is (571)270-5517. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm MT M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1487. 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.
/LARRY W THROWER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights