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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1,2,4,7 and 8 in the reply filed on 11/17/25 is acknowledged. Claims 9,13-15,18-19,22,29,32,38 and 39 have been withdrawn with claims 3,5,6,10-12,16,17,20,21,23-28,30,31 and 33-37 having been canceled. Hence, claims 1,2,4,7 and 8 remain in the application for prosecution thereof.
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.
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 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 Nielsen (6,221,435).
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.
Nielsen (6,221,435) teaches a method for the spray application of polymeric-containing liquid coating compositions using supercritical compressed fluids under choke flow spray condition whereby the use of subcritical compressed fluids such as carbon dioxide to reduce the viscosity and enhance atomization when spray applying coating composition (abstract).
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 Nielsen (6,221,435) with the expectation to reduce viscosity and enhance atomization of the spray applying coating.
Regarding claim 1, Shariatnia et al. teaches forming 3D nanostructures.
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).
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 Mon-Thurs 6:30-5PM - Fri OFF.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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 1715