DETAILED ACTION
This is the first action in response to US Patent Application No. 18/874,991, filed 13 December, 2024, as the National Stage Entry of International Application PCT/EP2023/065778, filed 13 June, 2023, and with foreign priority claimed to European Application EP 22179607.1, filed 17 June, 2022.
The preliminary amendments filed 13 December, 2024, have been entered; it is acknowledged that the amendments remove multiple dependencies and reference characters from the claims. All claims 1-15 are pending and have been fully considered.
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 Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because the claim recites that “the 3D printed material comprises in the range of 0.5-20 wt% photocatalytic material”, but claim 11—from which claim 12 depends—already includes an identical limitation (claim 11, line 4). Therefore, the limitation is redundant in claim 12 and should be removed from the claim; alternatively, the limitation should be adjusted to impose a further limitation on claim 11 (e.g., by reciting a narrower range).
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.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the photocatalytic material” at the fourth/final line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested the limitation be adjusted to recite “a photocatalytic material”. Alternatively, claim 11 could be adjusted to link to claim 1, such as by adjusting the preamble of claim 1 to recite “A 3D item produced by the method of claim 1
Claims 12-15 are rejected at least by virtue of dependency on or linkage to claim 11.
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)(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, 4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Kalish et al. (US 2023/0089703 A1, with PCT filing date 16 December, 2020, corresponding to document WO 2019/133651 A1, cited in the IDS filed 13 December, 2024).
Kalish teaches a method for producing a 3D item by means of fused deposition modeling (fused filament fabrication, known under the trade designation FUSED DEPOSITION MODELING—[0131]), the method comprising:
A 3D printing stage comprising layer-wise depositing 3D printable material to provide the 3D item comprising 3D printed material (making articles by extrusion-based layered deposition systems, e.g., fused filament fabrication systems…build data is sliced into multiple horizontal layers, and for each layer the host computer generates a build path for depositing roads of the composition to form the three-dimensional article having a printed adhesive thereon—[0135]; method of printing a hot-melt processable adhesive by forming disclosed core-sheath filaments, melting the filaments, blending the sheath and core to form a molten composition, and dispensing the molten composition through a nozzle onto a substrate—[0130]])
Wherein the 3D item comprises layers of 3D printed material (see [0135], three-dimensional article is formed by depositing layers of a composition, such that the formed item will comprise layers of 3D printed material), wherein the 3D printable material comprises a thermoplastic material (see [0130], printing method uses a molten composition formed by melting and blending any of various embodiments of core-sheath filaments disclosed by Kalish; such embodiments of core-sheaths filaments including, for example a sheath including a polyolefin—[0120]—and a core comprising a styrene block copolymer compositions—[0050]-[0053]—and optionally additional thermoplastic materials associated with a blowing agent of the core—[0084]—wherein any of said polymer materials fairly define thermoplastics—consider [0127]-[0128], and [0130] discussing melting of the filament composition, and the definition of thermoplastic disclosed at [0022])
and a photocatalytic material (a blowing agent composition of the core may include zinc oxide—[0082]—or titanium dioxide—[0092]—which are well known photocatalytic materials),
Wherein during at least part of the 3D printing stage the method comprises producing pores in the 3D printable material (core of filament includes a blowing agent—[0078]—which expand and/or release or produce gas species upon heating—[0079]; blowing agent is activated during filament making process—[0153]—which reasonably defines part of a “3D printing stage” of the method –see [0130]; thus, the activation of the blowing agent during the 3D printing stage forms pores in the 3D printable, yielding a foamed material).
Regarding claim 2, Kalish discloses the method according to claim 1. Kalish further teaches the 3D printable material further comprises a pore forming material (blowing agent), wherein during at least part of the 3D printing stage the method comprises producing pores by conversion of the pore forming material (physical blowing agents take advantage of the change in volume that occurs during first order phase transitions such as evaporation and sublimation or when a gas experiences a decrease in pressure, chemical blowing agents decompose to gaseous species when heated, or expandable microsphere blowing agents expand when heated above a glass transition temperature—[0079]; the expansion of the blowing agent forms foamed material, which are definitionally porous materials composed of gas filled networks or chambers segmented by a solid matrix—see [0078]; blowing agent activated by heat in filament making process—[0153]; chemical blowing agent may produce nitrogen gas upon activation—claim 8; foaming is initiated upon compounding of the core-sheath filament through a heated extruder nozzle—[0038]; core-sheath filament can be heated and extruded through a nozzle carried by an extrusion head during printing—see [0138], [0140]-[0141]; thus understood that blowing agent is activated during heating and extruding of the filaments during 3D printing, forming pores due in the heated filament material due to phase or chemical changes of the blowing agent).
Regarding claim 4, Kalish discloses the method according to claim 2. Kalish further teaches the pore forming material comprises … a foaming agent (blowing agent—see [0077]-[0079]).
Regarding claim 9, the claim is recognized as being directed toward a filament suitable for use within the method of claim 1. Accordingly, see the rejection of claim 1 above regarding how Kalish teaches a filament for producing a 3D item by means of fused deposition modeling (core-sheath filament—title—for 3D printing—see [0130]-[0132]), the filament comprising 3D printable material, wherein the 3D printable material comprises (i) a thermoplastic material (e.g., comprising a sheath including a polyolefin—[0120]— a core comprising a styrene block copolymer compositions—[0050]-[0053]—and a blowing agent including a thermoplastic material—[0084]), (ii) a photocatalytic material (zinc oxide—[0082]—or titanium dioxide—[0092]), and (iii) a pore forming material (blowing agent—see [0077]-[0081]).
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.
The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
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 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalish et al. (US 2023/0089703 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kalish discloses the method to claim 2. Claim 3 is understood to be directed toward an embodiment of the method wherein the pore forming material is a physical blowing agent which increases in volume due to evaporation; Kalish discusses such materials (physical blowing agents, “PBAs”, take advantage of the change in volume that occurs during first order phase transitions such as evaporation…expandable microsphere blowing agents can include a liquid hydrocarbon PBA inside a polymer shell, wherein the shell expands due to internal pressure of the heated PBA inside—[0079]; expandable microsphere includes a polymer shell and a core material which may include a liquid which expands upon heating—[0090]). Also, as discussed with respect to claim 2 above, Kalish is understood to teach that the pore forming material/blowing agent is activated while being extruded by a heated nozzle as part of the 3D printing stage (see rejection of claim 2 and Kalish at [0038], [0078]-[0079], [0138], [0140]-[0141], and [0153]). Thus, Kalish fairly discloses embodiments wherein the foaming agent includes a liquid at room temperature which evaporates and expands upon heating during extrusion.
Accordingly, Kalish teaches using a 3D printing apparatus, wherein the 3D printing apparatus comprises a printer nozzle (nozzle carried by extrusion head—[0138]; heated extruder nozzle—[0140]), wherein the pore forming material comprises a material having a boiling point Tb (hydrocarbon liquid PBA—[0079]; liquid inside polymer shell—[0090]), wherein the 3D printing stage comprises heating the pore forming material in the printer nozzle (extruder nozzle heated to at least 170 °C—[0140]; disclosed formulations are readily activated, i.e., foaming is initiated, upon compounding of the core-sheath filament through a heated extruder nozzle—[0038]) wherein the printer nozzle has a nozzle temperature Tn (at least 170 °C—[0140]).
Kalish does not explicitly indicate what a boiling point (Tb) of the cited liquid physical blowing agent (PBA) would be, such that Kalish does not explicitly teach that 50°C≤Tb≤Tn.
However, from the disclosure of Kalish, it is evident that the liquid boiling point must be at a temperature beneath the nozzle heating temperature in order for the nozzle to be able to provide sufficient heat to activate (i.e., evaporate) the liquid PBA (see, e.g., [0078]-[0079], [0090]). Also, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a PBA liquid with a boiling point close to room temperature is at risk of activating (i.e., evaporating) prior to a time of extrusion (e.g., if stored in a room or outdoor area which is exposed to abnormally high temperatures). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kalish by selecting a liquid PBA which boils at a temperature between 50°C and the Tn. and the nozzle temperature for the benefit of ensuring the nozzle is capable of providing sufficient heat to activate the liquid PBA (pore forming material) without risking premature activation of the liquid PBA if exposed to somewhat elevated temperatures prior to extruding.
Regarding claim 5, Kalish discloses the method according to claim 2. Kalish fairly suggests that the pore forming material, the 3D printable material, and the 3D printing conditions are selected such that a desired pore volume is achieved (foams are porous materials comprised of gas filled networks or chambers…the properties of foamed materials are governed by the composition of the matrix material and the morphology of its cellular structure—[0078]; control over the morphology of a foam’s cell structure is governed by the foaming method to which the matrix material is subjected—[0079]). While Kalish does not provide explicit suggestions for desired levels of porosity within the foamed material, it is evident that the foamed articles formed by the method of Kalish must have some porosity (foams definitionally include pores—[0078]—and thus must have some porosity), and that porosity is a characteristic of the morphology of a foamed material which will affect its properties (properties of foamed materials are governed by the composition of the matrix material and the morphology of its cellular structure—[0078]). Also, the range of 10-50% set forth by instant claim 5 is relatively broad. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kalish such that the selected materials and conditions yield foamed 3D article having a pore volume within the range of 10-50 vol.% by way of routine optimization for the benefit of achieving desired foam properties within the foamed article (consider Kalish at [0078]).
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalish et al. (US 2023/0089703 A1) in view of Suzuki (US 2016/0289859 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Kalish teaches the method according to claim 1. Kalish teaches the method including the use of titanium dioxide ([0092]) within the printable material, which is a photocatalyst material.
The language of claim 6 is generally understood to require that a largest major dimension (L1) of a photocatalyst particle is between 50-2000 µm and is either equal to or 10,000 times larger than the smallest major dimension (L3) of the photocatalyst particle (i.e., 1 ≤ [AR1=L1/L3] ≤ 10000), and that a second largest major dimension (L2) of the photocatalyst particle is also equal to or 10,000 times larger than the smallest major dimension (L3) (i.e., 1 ≤ [AR2=L2/L3] ≤ 10000); said major dimensions are aligned with three distinct orthogonal axes defining a 3D space (so as to define the length, width, and height of a rectangular prism circumscribing the photocatalyst particle).
Kalish does not teach the 3D printable material comprises flakes comprising the photocatalytic material, wherein the flakes have flake dimensions defined by smallest rectangular prisms circumscribing the respective flakes, wherein such rectangular prism has a length (L1), a width (L2), and a height (L3), wherein the length (L1) is selected from the range of 50-2000 µm, wherein a first aspect ratio is AR1=L1/L3, wherein a second aspect ratio is AR2=L2/L3, wherein the aspect ratios AR1 and AR2 are individually selected from the range of 1-10000.
However, in the analogous art of the formation of titanium dioxide flakes (title), Suzuki teaches a method which yields flakes having a largest dimension within the range of 10 to 200 µm (crystalline TiO2 flakes having a particle diameter in the range of 10 to 200 µm—[0028], [0065]; “particle diameter” expresses a diameter corresponding to the largest length or width of the flake—[0066])), which overlaps with the claimed range of 50-2000 µm. Suzuki further indicates a thickness (corresponding to a height L3) of the flake is between 0.1 and 2 µm, which would define an aspect ratio AR1 within a range of 1-10000 (e.g., AR1 = L1/L3 = 200 µm max diameter / 2 µm max thickness =100). Suzuki also indicates that, an aspect ratio of the flakes—understood to refer to an aspect ratio L1/L2 (i.e., longest major dimension to second longest major dimension)—can be between 5 and 150 ([0068]), which would yield an AR2 value (L2/L3, i.e., width over thickness or height) within the claimed range of 1-10,000. Accordingly, the flakes of Suzuki are consistent with the limitations of claim 6. Furthermore, Suzuki indicates that the flakes advantageously can act as a pigment having a high luster ([0012], [0035], [0066]-[0069], [0071]) and also have utility as photocatalyst ([0004], [0031], [0071], [0086]), with Suzuki suggest including the titanium dioxide flakes in coating compositions or plastics to achieve such properties ([0071]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kalish by selecting the titanium dioxide flakes of Suzuki—which are consistent with the requirements of claim 6—as the titanium dioxide particles for the benefit of imparting a high luster and/or photocatalytic properties to the formed 3D item.
Regarding claim 10, Kalish teaches the filament according to claim 9. As discussed with respect to claim 3 above, it would be obvious to select at a pore forming material which is a liquid at room temperature and which has a boiling point which is beneath the nozzle temperature of Kalish (170°C—[0140]) to ensure that the nozzle can activate the pore forming material, while also ensuring that the boiling point is sufficiently high to prevent unintended activation of the pore forming material due to incidental heating (see rejection of claim 3 above). For these same reasons, it would be obvious to a person arrive at an embodiment of Kalish wherein the pore forming material comprises a liquid at room temperature that boils at a temperature selected from the range of 100-350°C (for the benefit of selecting a material which can be controlled to activate only when intended by the extruder nozzle).
Kalish teaches the filament includes particles of titanium dioxide ([0092]) which are a photocatalytic material, but Kalish does not particularly suggest the particles are flakes having the dimensions and aspect ratios recited by instant claim 10 (which are identical to those recited in claim 6).
However, as discussed with respect to claim 6 above, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the to arrive at an embodiment of Kalish wherein the flakes of Suzuki are selected as the titanium dioxide particles for the benefit of imparting a high luster and photocatalytic activity to an article formed by the filament (see rejection of claim 6 above).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalish et al. (US 2023/0089703 A1) in view of Vahora et al. (US 2021/0069981 A1, cited in the IDS filed 13 December, 2024).
Regarding claim 7, Kalish teaches the method according to claim 1. Kalish does not particularly indicate that the 3D printable material comprises one or more fluoropolymers.
However, in the analogous art of thermoplastic filament materials for 3D printers (abstract), Vahora teaches various fluoropolymer materials which can be useful to include in a filament for 3D printing ([0031], [0065]-[0069] [0080]-[0081]), Vahora further indicating that fluoropolymer print materials have good mechanical properties and weathering, and further can function to create voids in printed articles ([0005]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include one or more fluoropolymers within the 3D printable material of Kalish for the benefit of providing a mechanically strong material which can form voids in printed articles (see Vahora at [0005]), which may be desirable in certain circumstances.
Claims 11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan-Lange et al. (US 2022/0062488 A1).
Regarding claim 11, it is first noted that although the claim describes the 3D item comprising a plurality of layers of 3D printed material, this limitation alone is not considered to require that the item be formed by a fused deposition modeling (FDM) or equivalent technique [unlike claim 1]. Thus, the structure of claim 11 can be formed by substantially any 3D printing technique, as essentially every commonly used 3D printing technique builds an item in layers.
Morgan-Lange discloses a photocatalyst (title, abstract) configured as a 3-dimensionally ordered macroporous (“3-DOM”) structure ([0079], [0139]) formed by 3D printing ([0029], [0080]), which includes a photocatalyst material on or in a resin of the structure ([0028]). The exemplary 3D printing techniques used to form the photocatalyst of Morgan-Lange include stereolithography or selective laser sintering techniques (SLA or SLS 3D printing techniques—[0080]), such that the photocatalyst is formed as a structure comprising layers of 3D printed material.
Therefore, Morgan-Lange evidently teaches a 3D item (3-DOM) comprising 3D printed material, wherein the 3D item comprises a plurality of layers of 3D printed material (see discussion of [0028]-[0029], [0079]-[0080], and [0139] above), wherein at least part of the 3D printed material has a relatively high pore volume (the 3-DOM structure is “macroporous”, which indicates that the structure is highly porous) and wherein the 3D printed material comprises a photocatalytic material (photocatalyst may be in resin of structure—[0028], [0080], [0141], claim 15).
Morgan-Lange does not indicate that the pore volume is necessarily within the range of 10-50 vol.%, and that the photocatalytic material is present in the printed material at a concentration of 0.5-20 wt%.
Morgan-Lange indicates that the porosity of the structure allows for interaction of incident photons on the photocatalyst within the matrix and creates airflow pathways to facilitate interaction between airborne pollutants and photocatalyst surfaces ([0079]).
Also, it is evident to a person having ordinary skill in the art that greater amount of photocatalytic material included in the material will generally correlate to a greater photocatalytic effect (i.e., adding more photocatalyst material provides more sites for photocatalytic oxidation).
Therefore—in the absence of clear evidence of criticality—it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrive at a pore volume within the range of 10-50 vol.% and a photocatalytic material concentration between 0.5 and 20 wt% by way of routine optimization of the photocatalyst structure of Morgan-Lange, for the benefit of achieving a desired photocatalytic effect (greater porosity exposes more titanium dioxide to airflow to be treated—consider Morgan-Lange at [0079]—and the concentration of photocatalyst in the material will also directly affect the amount of sites available for photocatalytic oxidation).
Regarding claim 13, Morgan-Lange—as modified above—teaches the 3D item (3-DOM) according to claim 11. Morgan-Lange further teaches the 3D item (photocatalytic system 130a/b may comprise the 3-DOM structure—[0095]) being in combination with a radiation generating system (115) configured to generate device light comprising violet and/or UV light, and wherein the 3D item (3-DOM of photocatalytic system 140a/b) is configured in a light receiving relationship with the light generating device (lamp 115 is positioned to irradiate the photocatalytic system 140[a/b] with incident radiation 118..such as IR, UV, or visible light—Fig. 1, [0093]; lamp 115 comprises UV lamp—[0096]). The radiation generating system (air purifier 100) of Morgan-Lange is depicted in Fig. 1, provided below for reference.
PNG
media_image1.png
246
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Morgan-Lange teaches the radiation system according to claim 13. Morgan-Lange further teaches the radiation generating system (100) further comprises a fan (120) to promote flow of a gas along at least part of the 3D item (contaminated intake air is fed into photocatalytic system 140a/b… [by] fan 120 pushing air through and out of the air purifier 100—[0100]; also evident from Fig. 1 that path of airflow through the ductwork of the air purifier 100 is along part of 3-DOM of the photocatalyst 140).
Regarding claim 15, the claim is a method that amounts to ordinary operation of the system of claim 13. Accordingly, see the rejections of claims 11 and 13 above regarding how Morgan-Lange teaches the radiation generating system according to claim 13. Ordinary operation of the identified system (100) of Morgan-Lange amounts to a method for treating a gas, the method comprising contacting the gas with the 3D item (3-DOM of photocatalyst system 140) from the radiation generation system (air purifier 100) according to claim 13 and irradiating the 3D item (114) with device light (118) form the radiation generating system (115) (Fig. 1 shows airflow 112 and 114 through the system 100 and into contact with the photocatalysts 140 including the 3D item while the photocatalyst is irradiated with light from lamp 15—see Fig. 1, [0093]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan-Lange et al. (US 2022/0062488 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki (US 2016/0289859 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Morgan-Lange teaches the 3D item according to claim 11. Morgan-Lange indicates the photocatalyst material is typically provided as particles ([0088]-[0089], [0110], [0134]) and Morgan-Lange further suggests adjusting a particle size of the photocatalyst material ([0068]).
Nonetheless, Morgan-Lange does not particularly suggest that the photocatalyst material is presented as flakes having the dimensions set forth in claim 12, which are identical to the limitations set forth in instant claim 6.
However, for similar reasons as discussed with respect to claims 6 and 10 above, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the 3D item of Morgan-Lange such that the flakes of Suzuki—which are consistent with the limitations of claim 12 (see teachings of Suzuki at [0028], [0065]-[0066], an [0068] as presented with respect to claims 6 and 10 above )—are selected as the photocatalyst particles incorporated into the resin of the 3D item of Morgan-Lange for the benefit of yielding an item with both a high luster and photocatalytic activity (see Suzuki at [0004], [0012], [0031]. [0035], [0066]-[0069], [0071], and [0086]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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 8, Kalish teaches the method according to claim 1. Kalish further teaches the 3D printing stage comprises: layer-wise depositing a filament comprising the 3D printable material ([0002], [0131], [0135], [0136]), wherein the filament comprises a core-shell filament (1320) (core-sheath filament—[0040]-[0049]) comprising (i) a core (core—[0050]-[0052]) and (ii) a shell (sheath), wherein the shell at least partly encloses the core (sheath—[0119]-[0129]; Figs. 1 clearly show core 22 surrounded by sheath 24—[0040]), wherein the core and shell comprise thermoplastic material (e.g., sheath includes a polyolefin—[0120]— core includes a styrene block copolymer—[0050]-[0053]).
Kalish does not teach that a second concentration of photocatalytic material (409) comprised by the shell (340) is larger than a first concentration of photocatalytic material in the core (330), with Kalish only teaching titanium dioxide being associated with a blowing agent of the core (0092]) and not necessarily present at all within the sheath.
No prior art was found which teaches or fairly suggests performing a method of 3D printing consistent with claim 8 wherein the method uses a filament having a greater concentration of photocatalytic material in a shell/sheath relative to a core of the filament. Accordingly, the subject matter of claim 8 is found to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vyatskikh et al. (US 2018/0088462 A1) teaches methods of additive manufacturing to form architecture materials (title, abstract), an embodiment of which is particularly useful for forming a 3D titania structure suitable for supporting the disinfection of water with sunlight (Figs. 7A-C, [0015]; [0053]-[0053). The structure is understood to formed using stereolithography based 3D printing methods ([0052], [0055], [0083]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY C PILSBURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8054. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30a-5:00p.
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 MARCHESCHI can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/BRADY C PILSBURY/Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights