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
Claim 12 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/1/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 6/1/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the groups are not patentably distinct and that there is no serious burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because groups I & II are drawn to method and apparatus (system) claims. However, the elements of system claim 12 vary significantly from the elements of method claim 1.
The system of claim 12 comprises elements such as “the electromagnetic induction coil is a flattened coil have a bottom surface presenting a plane that is co-planar and axially with the molding pan which has a circular bottom and a circumferential upwardly extending edge”; the first magneto-sensitive particles having “a core Fe3O4 particle size of 50-100 nm coated with a polyvinyl alcohol polymer to form a core shell structure having an outside surface functionalized with one or more selected from the group consisting of a chloroacetic anhydride, an acyl chloride, and an isothiocyanate”; and wherein the EM resin system “further comprises second magneto-sensitive particles selected from the group consisting of cobalt, nickel, silver, and gold; wherein the second magneto-sensitive particles are present in a first magneto-sensitive particles: second magneto-sensitive particles mass ratio of 1:0.05 to 1:0.5, and wherein the second magneto-sensitive particles are dispersed in a bottom layer of the EM resin system that is 10% by volume or less of the total volume of the EM resin system, wherein the bottom layer rests on the molding pan”. These are not required elements from claim 1.
Additionally, method and apparatus claims will typically require distinct search strategies and classifications.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error.
In claim 1, line 5, the comma should be removed after “obtain an EM phase”. This first instance of ‘EM’ in the independent claim should be amended to “electromagnetic (EM)”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
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 1, 6 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cortes (EP4541834A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
1. A method of forming a three-dimensional structure, comprising: introducing a base matrix phase in a first preparation vessel, wherein the base matrix phase comprises an epoxy resin and a latent curing agent; mixing and uniformly dispersing first magneto-sensitive particles in a second preparation vessel to obtain an EM phase; mixing the EM phase with the base matrix phase to obtain an electromagnetic (EM) resin system; transferring the EM resin system to a molding vessel having an electromagnetic induction heater positioned a first distance away from a top surface of the molding vessel; and exposing the electromagnetic resin system in the molding vessel to electromagnetic radiation to heat and cure the electromagnetic resin system and thereby form the three-dimensional structure.
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of Cortes teaches a method of forming a three-dimensional structure, comprising: blending epoxy, mainly composed of diglycidyl ethers of bisphenol-A and other additives; adding iron oxide nanoparticles into the epoxy blend and mixing; then mixing an amine blend (mainly composed of polyetheramine and polyamidoimidazoline and other additives) together with epoxy/nanoparticle blend [0049-0050].
Cortes teaches combining the EM phase nanoparticles, epoxy and amine components to obtain an electromagnetic (EM) resin system [0056]; transferring the EM resin system to a molding vessel [0057] having an electromagnetic induction heater (Fig. 2, [0058]) positioned a first distance away from a top surface of the molding vessel [0051]; and exposing the electromagnetic resin system in the molding vessel to electromagnetic radiation to heat and cure the electromagnetic resin system and thereby form the three-dimensional structure [0061].
From the process above, Cortes is silent on preparing the mixture in the claimed method order of ‘introducing a base matrix phase in a first preparation vessel, wherein the base matrix phase comprises an epoxy resin and a latent curing agent; mixing and uniformly dispersing first magneto-sensitive particles in a second preparation vessel to obtain an EM phase’.
However, it would be known to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that mixing processes such as the one taught by Cortes would have been developed by experimentation, and could have resulted differently under a different experiment design. For example, the nanoparticle addition step could have experimentally resulted in a process adding the nanoparticles into other components such as the amine mixture, if the amine component were found to have a proper volume of material and the rheological properties (e.g., viscosity, shear rate) to allow for dispersion of the nanoparticles.
Further, Cortes does not teach away from using an alternate mixing means to result in the same final mixture from the given components.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to try different orders of mixing components experimentally, from the finite number of mixture components taught by Cortes, to result in a process with optimized component mixing and dispersion of nanoparticles in the shortest time possible.
For example, by adding the magneto-sensitive nanoparticles into the amine components (to obtain an EM phase) instead of into the epoxy, and then blending the EM phase into the epoxy (base matrix phase), this would have prima facie obviously resulted in the claimed mixing steps.
6. The method of Claim 1, wherein the base matrix phase further comprises an accelerator.
With respect to claim 6, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Cortes teaches the base matrix phase can optionally comprise an accelerator [0020, Claim 1]. Cortes does not specify accelerator types.
10. The method of Claim 1, wherein the EM resin system is a single-part resin system and is free of any fiber reinforcements.
With respect to claim 10, Cortes prima facie obviously teaches a single-part epoxy since its curing is done by a latent agent or by induced heat after mixing {[0020]}; the cure is not a chemical, room temperature curing process after mixing two separate components.
Cortes teaches the EM resin system can be free of any fiber reinforcements, as glass fibers in the resin system are only optional [0020, Claim 1].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cortes (EP4541834A1), as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, and further in view of Miyazaki (US20260189086A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
2. The method of Claim 1, wherein the latent curing agent is a dicyandiamide and the first magneto-sensitive particles are Fe3O4.
With respect to claim 2, Cortes teaches the first magneto-sensitive particles can be Fe3O4 [0034-0035].
Cortes is silent on the latent curing agent being a dicyandiamide.
However, the prior art of Sorenson teaches a core-sheath type polymeric filament (Fig. 1, item 10) for additive manufacturing comprising epoxy and amine compounds [0034, 0041] and dicyandiamide (DICY) as a curing agent [0072].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the dicyandiamide curing agent taught by Sorenson in place of an unspecified curing agent taught in the epoxy resin by the method of Cortes, resulting in a defined latent curing agent for the epoxy resin in the method of Cortes.
This substitution would have a reasonable expectation of success, because Cortes teaches a similar chemistry, with an example using epoxy (mainly composed of diglycidyl ethers of bisphenol-A and other additives) [0019, 0049]”.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cortes (EP4541834A1), as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, and further in view of Kobyliukh (Kobyliukh, et al., “Iron oxides/graphene hybrid structures – Preparation, modification, and application as fillers of polymer composites”). Claim elements are presented in italics.
3. The method of Claim 1, wherein the first magneto-sensitive particles include an Fe3O4 nanoparticle core having an outer surface coated with a polyvinyl alcohol polymer shell.
With respect to claim 3, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Cortes teaches the first magneto-sensitive particles include an Fe3O4 nanoparticle
Cortes is silent on the Fe3O4 nanoparticle core having an outer surface coated with a shell, such as a polyvinyl alcohol polymer.
However, the prior art of Kobyliukh teaches the magneto-sensitive particles including an Fe3O4 nanoparticle core can have an outer surface coated with a polyvinyl alcohol polymer shell [P. 18, Col. 1, ¶ 2 - Col. 2, ¶ 1]. Kobyliukh teaches the PVA coating can change physical properties of the particle (e.g., better thermal and mechanical properties, higher alkaline stability, etc.). This modified surface functionality would prima facie obviously be desired in certain applications for the magneto-sensitive particles to improve desired interactive properties of the particle surface.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to apply the known technique of coating the Fe3O4 nanoparticle core with a polyvinyl alcohol polymer shell, taught by Kobyliukh, to improve the Fe3O4 nanoparticles taught by Cortes in the same way. This modification of Cortes, in view of Kobyliukh, would result in an outer surface PVA coating, which would result in a change in functionality and physical properties of the particle (e.g., better thermal and mechanical properties, higher alkaline stability, etc.) with a reasonable expectation of success.
4. The method of Claim 3, where the polyvinyl alcohol polymer shell is functionalized with one or more polar groups.
With respect to claim 4, Kobyliukh teaches an embodiment wherein a Fe3O4 nanoparticle coating can be functionalized by one or more polar groups, such as graphene oxide which is known by a person of ordinary skill in the art to easily disperse in polar solvents [P. 3, last ¶ - P. 4, first ¶]. Kobyliukh teaches nanoparticles hybridized with graphene structures can be selected to reduce agglomeration [P. 3, ¶ 4].
This embodiment does not explicitly teach a nanoparticle coated with a polyvinyl alcohol polymer shell.
However, in the event that it is ultimately determined that the embodiments of Kobyliukh recited above are separate or distinct embodiments within Kobyliukh, one would have found it obvious to combine these various embodiments in order to provide a nanoparticle coated with a polyvinyl alcohol polymer shell functionalized by graphene oxide for improved dispersion in polar solvents.
5. The method of Claim 4, where the polyvinyl alcohol polymer shell is functionalized with one or more selected from the group consisting of chloroacetic anhydride, an acyl chloride, an isothiocyanate and/or a ketene.
With respect to claim 5, Kobyliukh teaches an embodiment wherein a Fe3O4 nanoparticle coating can be functionalized by covalent bonding to an acyl chloride derivative [P. 10, Col. 1, ¶ 2].
This embodiment does not explicitly teach a nanoparticle coated with a polyvinyl alcohol polymer shell.
However, in the event that it is ultimately determined that the embodiments of Kobyliukh recited above are separate or distinct embodiments within Kobyliukh, one would have found it obvious to combine these various embodiments in order to provide a nanoparticle coated with a polyvinyl alcohol polymer shell functionalized by acyl chloride in an effort to improve dispersion or to modify physical properties of the particle surface as desired.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cortes (EP4541834A1), as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, and further in view of Fujita (US20210213691A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
7. The method of Claim 6, wherein the accelerator is selected from the group consisting of a cycloaliphatic-bis-urea, a 4,4-methylene-bis-urea, a N,N'-dimethylurea, a 2,4’-toluene bis dimethyl urea, and a 3-(3,4-dichloro-phenyl)-1,1-dimethyl urea.
With respect to claim 7, as set forth in the rejection of claim 6, Cortes teaches the use of an accelerator in the epoxy resin system.
Cortes is silent on the accelerator type, and is silent on the group consisting of a cycloaliphatic-bis-urea, a 4,4-methylene-bis-urea, a N,N'-dimethylurea, a 2,4’-toluene bis dimethyl urea, and a 3-(3,4-dichloro-phenyl)-1,1-dimethyl urea.
However, in a similar field of art, the prior art of Fujita teaches a curable epoxy system that comprises a dicyandiamide curing agent and a 2,4’-toluene bis dimethyl urea accelerator [0051].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the 2,4’-toluene bis dimethyl urea accelerator taught by Fujita in place of an unspecified accelerator taught in the epoxy resin by the method of Cortes, resulting in a defined accelerator type for the epoxy resin in the method of Cortes, with a reasonable expectation of success because of their similar chemistry.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cortes (EP4541834A1), as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, and further in view of Meegan (US20160176083A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
8. The method of Claim 1, further comprising placing the molding vessel containing the EM resin system in a vacuum bag, then applying a vacuum to the molding vessel containing the EM resin system.
With respect to claim 8, Cortes is silent on placing the mold vessel in a vacuum bag.
However, the prior art of Meegan teaches placing the molding vessel containing a similar epoxy resin system in a vacuum bag, then applying a vacuum to the molding vessel containing the resin system [0006].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use the known technique of Meegan to improve the process of Cortes in the same way, as vacuum bagging is known in the art to improve the molding process by removing entrapped air voids from the EM resin system, which would result in a stronger cured product.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cortes (EP4541834A1), as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, and further in view of Vaseem (US20190259517A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
9. The method of Claim 1, wherein the EM resin system comprises a chemical agent selected from the group consisting of oleic acid and carboxymethylcellulose.
With respect to claim 9, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Cortes teaches an EM resin system.
Cortes teaches the first magneto-sensitive particles can be Fe3O4 [0034-0035].
Cortes is silent on the EM resin system comprising a chemical agent selected from the group consisting of oleic acid and carboxymethylcellulose.
However, in an analogous field of art, the prior art of Vaseem teaches an iron oxide particles dispersed in an epoxy resin for an inkjet printing application, wherein oleic acid is used for functionalization of iron oxide nanoparticles [0097]. Vaseem teaches the oleic acid can adsorb to the iron oxide particle and allow improved compatibility with numerous organic solvents, such as cyclopentanone [0072].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use the technique of adsorbing oleic acid for functionalization of iron oxide nanoparticles, taught by Vaseem, to improve the similar iron oxide particles taught by Cortes, in the same way; this modification would improve nanoparticle compatability with numerous organic solvents, and would improve dispersion and blending into the desired solvent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 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 11, Cortes, in view of Kobyliukh, teaches ‘the first magneto-sensitive particles have a core Fe3O4 particle size of 50-100 nm [Cortes - Claim 5] and are coated with a polyvinyl alcohol polymer to form a core shell structure [see rejection of claim 3] that has an outside surface functionalized with acyl chloride [see rejection of claim 5].
However, no prior art was found to modify Cortes to teach ‘the EM resin system further comprises second magneto-sensitive particles selected from the group consisting of cobalt, nickel, silver, and gold; wherein the second magneto-sensitive particles are present in a first magneto-sensitive particles: second magneto-sensitive particles mass ratio of 1:0.05 to 1:0.5, and wherein the second magneto-sensitive particles are dispersed in a bottom layer of the EM resin system that is 10% by volume or less of the total volume of the EM resin system’.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY C GROSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-1363. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM - 5PM.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on 571-270-7457. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GREGORY C. GROSSO
Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/GREGORY C. GROSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights