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 .
The amendment filed 4/8/26 has been considered and entered. Claims 9,13-15,18-19,22,29,32,38 and 39 have been withdrawn while claims 3,5,6,10-12,16,17,20,21,23-28,30,31 and 33-37 have been canceled. Hence, claims 1,2,4,7 and 8 remain in the application for prosecution thereof.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Considering the amendment filed 4/8/26, the 35 USC 112 rejection has been necessitated. The 35 USC 103 rejection has been withdrawn, however, the following rejection has been necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 1 is 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 1, the term “the engineered patterns” lack antecedent basis as the claim recites “patterns” but not engineered patterns. Clarification is requested.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1,2,4,7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shariatnia et al. “Atomization of cellulose nanocrystals aqueous suspensions in fused deposition modeling: A scalable technique to improve strength of 3D printed polymers” (Shariatnia et al. going forward) in combination with Reverchon (2004/0178529).
Shariatnia et al. teaches a 3D printed polymers whereby cellulose nanocrystals are applied therebetween adjacent layers of polymers (claimed substrate) with the aid of atomization integrated with the fused deposition modeling printer to spray aqueous suspension of cellulose nanocrystals during the process (abstract).
Shariatnia et al. fails to teach the atomization to be supercritical CO2 assisted.
Reverchon (2004/0178529) teaches a process to produce micro and/or nanoparticles to perform the supercritical assisted atomization of the nano and/or micro metric powders. It is possible to use a liquid solvent that show low solubility in carbon dioxide. Atomization is obtained by solubilizing pressurized carbon dioxide including supercritical in a solution to produce very small droplet of micronic and sub-micronic dimension and producing droplets (abstract) and useful for coatings [0001]
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have modified Shariatnia et al. “Atomization of cellulose nanocrystals aqueous suspensions in fused deposition modeling: A scalable technique to improve strength of 3D printed polymers” to utilize supercritical CO2 assistance in spray application as evidenced by Reverchon (2004/0178529) with the expectation to reduce viscosity and enhance atomization of the spray applying coating.
Regarding claim 1, Shariatnia et al. teaches forming 3D nanostructures. Reverchon (2004/0178529) teaches carbon dioxide assisted atomization to produce droplet sized particles for coatings.
Regarding claim 2, Shariatnia et al. teaches cellulose nanocrystals (CNC).
Regarding claim 4, Shariatnia et al. teaches a 3D structure and the claimed ring, disk or domes are known 3D structures and hence would have been within the skill of one practicing the invention to have formed these 3D structures with the expectation of similar success.
Regarding claim 7, Shariatnia et al. teaches using CNC nanocrystals which would meet the claimed nanoparticle and having more than one CNC would meet the claimed second nanoparticle as the first and second nanoparticle can include multiple CNC’s as they are not claimed to be mutually exclusive.
Regrading claim 8, Shariatnia et al. teaches forming a pattern on the ABS to improve interlayer strength of the ABS acting like nano-stitches between the adjacent layers of polymer (ABS).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1,2,4,7 and 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argued prior art teaches forming droplets using supercritical assisted CO2 atomization.
Reverchon (2004/0178529) teaches this as detailed above.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights