DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 2/19/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-8 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 5-8 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 5 recites the limitation “contacting the polymeric particulates with the soluble material in particulate form” in line. It is unclear if the soluble material is in particulate form or the polymeric particulates are in particulate form when contacting the soluble material. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the soluble material is in particulate form.
Claim 6 is similarly rejected as being dependent on claim 5.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the packed region of particulate material" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 describes a packed region within a soluble material, and also particulates within the soluble material, but not necessarily that the particulate material is part of any packed region.
Claim 8 is similarly rejected as being dependent on claim 7.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehrabi et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2011/0177320), hereinafter MEHRABI, in view of Kawasaki et al. (U.S. 4,298,823), hereinafter KAWASAKI.
Regarding claim 1, MEHRABI teaches: A method (MEHRABI teaches a method [Abstract].) comprising: vibrating a mesh frame to form a packed region within a soluble material passing through the mesh frame (MEHRABI teaches the milled slurry was sieved through different mesh sizes and then used to form the lattice constructions (10) [0104].), the packed region having a plurality of voids (MEHRABI teaches the particles (10a) can abut, contact or otherwise touch one or more of their neighboring particles (10a) while forming one or more voids [0039].), . . . ; and contacting a flowable polymeric material with at least a portion of the packed region of the soluble material such that at least a portion of the flowable polymeric material is disposed in at least a portion of the plurality of voids of the packed region (MEHRABI teaches the lattice construction (10) is complete or partially invaded by a second fluid material (14) [0042]. MEHRABI teaches the invading fluid (14) at least partially fills the spaces, voids, and/or gaps between the particles (10a) [0042]. MEHRABI teaches fluidization of a polymeric material and invading the polymeric material into the lattice construction [0014], indicating that the polymeric material is converted into a flowable polymeric material. MEHRABI also teaches the invading fluid can be a molten polymer [0057] and the invading fluid can be melted [0057]. MEHRABI teaches the invading fluid can be introduced as a pre-formed molten film and extruded onto the lattice construction and flowed into the lattice constructions (10) [0057; 0067-0068; Fig. 6]. Additionally, MEHRABI teaches the extruded film is formed from the pellets [0109].).
MEHRABI is silent as to: wherein dimensions of a spacer between the mesh frame and the soluble material corresponds to a desired thickness of particulates within the soluble material. In the same field of endeavor, mesh frames, KAWASAKI teaches spacers (19a, 19b) between the mesh (16a, 16b) and the substrate (11) [Col. 4, lines 43-47; Fig. 9]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention to modify MEHRABI, by having spacers between the mesh and substrate, as suggested by KAWASAKI, in order to easily mount the grids to a proper position of the substrate [Col. 1, lines 44-46].
Regarding claim 2, MEHRABI teaches: further comprising solidifying a portion of the flowable polymeric material to thereby form a composite material (MEHRABI teaches the material (14) is suitably solidified thereby forming an intermediate composite material (16) [0043].).
Regarding claim 3, MEHRABI teaches: further comprising converting the composite material into a porous article (MEHRABI teaches some or all of the material making up the lattice construction (10) and/or any remaining first fluid (12) is removed from the intermediate composite material (16) to create the final structured material (18) [0044]. MEHRABI teaches the removed portions of the lattice construction (10) form or leave behind one or more micro-structures (e.g., a network of interconnected pores) [0044].).
Regarding claim 4, MEHRABI teaches: wherein contacting the flowable polymeric material with at least a portion of the packed region of the soluble material includes: providing a polymeric film; contacting the polymeric film with a layer of the soluble material in particulate form (MEHRABI teaches a polymeric film (14) contacting one or two lattice constructions (10) [0098].); and heating the polymeric film to a temperature sufficient to transform the polymeric film into the flowable polymeric material (MEHRABI teaches the film and lattice construction(s) are pressed with a prescribed temperature, force and dwell times using a heated press [0098].).
Regarding claim 5, MEHRABI teaches: wherein contacting a flowable polymeric material with at least a portion of the packed region of the soluble particulate material includes: providing polymeric particulates; contacting the polymeric particulates with the soluble material in particulate form (MEHRABI teaches contacting the soluble materials (10a) with the polymeric particulates in molten form [0109].); and heating the polymeric particulates to a temperature sufficient to transform the polymeric particulates to a flowable polymeric material (MEHRABI teaches the pellets are melted and extruded and come into contact with the soluble particulates [0109].).
Regarding claim 6, MEHRABI teaches: wherein the polymeric particulates are in a fibrous form, a tubular form, or a spherical form (MEHRABI teaches the polymeric particulates are in the form of pellets, which are rounded [0109].).
Regarding claim 7, MEHRABI teaches: wherein the contacting includes injecting at least one polymeric material in flowable form into the packed region of particulate material (MEHRABI teaches infiltrating the lattice construction (10) by a first fluid material (12) [0041]. MEHRABI teaches the fluid (12) can be any fluid, for example gas, or any liquid that can optionally be solidified [0013], indicating a polymeric material can be chosen.).
Regarding claim 8, MEHRABI teaches: wherein the injecting includes: a first injection of a first polymeric material (MEHRABI teaches infiltration the lattice construction (10) by a first fluid material (12) [0041].); and a second injection of a second polymeric material, the second injection performed after the first injection (MEHRABI teaches next invaded the lattice construction (10) with the invading polymeric fluid (14) [0042]. MEHRABI teaches the invading fluid can be a molten polymer [0057].).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehrabi et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2011/0177320), hereinafter MEHRABI, and Kawasaki et al. (U.S. 4,298,823), hereinafter KAWASAKI, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Lo et al. (U.S. 4,863,604), hereinafter LO.
Regarding claim 6, MEHRABI teaches the claimed limitation above. In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, porous process, LO teaches: wherein the polymeric particulates are in a fibrous form, a tubular form, or a spherical form (LO teaches the polymeric particulates are spherical [Col. 4, lines 30-31]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention to modify MEHRABI, KAWASAKI and SHEPPARD, by having the polymeric particles be spherical, as a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. See In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23 (It has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
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 at (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 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights