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 Group I: claims 1-4 and 11-14 in the reply filed on 6/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-9 and 15-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 6/16/2026.
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 1-4 and 11-14 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 “exchanging the water with an ionic solution to increase the repulsion of water,” which renders the claim indefinite. An ionic solution does not necessarily contain water; therefore, it is unclear what water there is to repulse in the case when the water is exchanged with an ionic solution that does not contain water. Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the repulsion.”
Claim 1 further recites “and removing the polymer structure from the solution” after “at least one of increasing the temperature of the water or exchanging the water with an ionic solution,” which renders the claim indefinite. In the case where the temperature of the water is increased and the water is not exchanged with an ionic solution, the polymer structure is not in a solution. Therefore, it is unclear how the polymer structure is removed from a solution, when the polymer structure is in water.
For the purposes of examination, claim 1 is given the broadest reasonable interpretation such that the limitation “at least one of increasing the temperature of the water or exchanging the water with an ionic solution to increase the repulsion of water from the hydrogel structure to transition the hydrogel structure to a polymer structure; and removing the polymer structure from the solution” is interpreted as –and at least one of: a) increasing the temperature of the water to increase repulsion of water by the hydrogel structure and transition the hydrogel structure to a polymer structure, and b) exchanging the water with an ionic solution and removing the polymer structure from the ionic solution–.
Claims 2-4 and 11-14 are dependent on claim 1 and are thus also rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the digital light projection grayscale lithography" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that there is sufficient antecedent basis for “dynamic light projection grayscale lithography,” which is recited in claim 11. Claims 12-14 are dependent on claim 11 and are thus also rejected for the same reason.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the digital light projection grayscale lithography" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that there is sufficient antecedent basis for “dynamic light projection grayscale lithography,” which is recited in claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 11-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the method of forming air-stable polymer structures as recited. In particular, the closest prior art, Han (Han, D et al. “Micro 3D Printing of a Temperature-Responsive Hydrogel Using Projection Micro-Stereolithography”; 31 January 2018; Scientific Reports 8, Article number 1963.) discloses a method of forming hydrogel structures with programmed 3D shapes (temperature dependent deformation of 3D printed PNIPAAm; abstract), comprising: preparing a precursor solution (photo-curable PNIPAAm resins are prepared by dissolving different parts; page 4, heading 3D Printing of PNIPAAm); introducing the precursor solution into a cell (the precursor is printed on a stage (cell); page 3, first paragraph; figure 1 ); exposing the precursor solution in the cell with light to form a hydrogel structure from the precursor solution (hydrogels are prepared using patterned UV light which converts liquid resin to a solid layer through photo-polymerization; abstract; page 3, first paragraph), the hydrogel structure comprising continuously varying, spatially controlled compositions and material properties (temperature dependent swelling behavior of PNlPAAm can be spatially encoded and distributed within a layer; page 17, first paragraph); and shape-morphing the hydrogel structure to form a prescribed shape by heating or cooling the hydrogel structure (temperature dependent deformation of the printed structure as illustrated by shrinkage dependent on temperature; page 3, figure 1; page 5, last paragraph).
However, Han fails to teach or fairly suggest the steps of performing at least one of: a) increasing the temperature of the water to increase repulsion of water by the hydrogel structure and transition the hydrogel structure to a polymer structure, and b) exchanging the water with an ionic solution and removing the polymer structure from the ionic solution, as required by Examiner’s interpretation of claim 1. Thus, claim 1 is distinct over the teachings of the prior art. Claims 2-4 and 11-14 further limit the subject matter of claim 1 and are thus also distinct over the teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY M LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0483. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1177. 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.
/ANTHONY M LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights