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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (CN114683532, English translation provided).
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, a method of forming a thermal vascular self-responsive composite comprising the steps of:
(a) providing a cementitious composite material (page 2, lines 119-120);
(b) inserting a sacrificial filament into the material (page 3, lines 122-130 (i.e., printing/inserting/embedding the ink (filament)));
(c) removing the filament, forming a channel (page 3, lines 126-127 (i.e., sacrificing the ink)); and
(d) inserting a phase change material (e.g., the oil phase…a sealing agent including paraffin as PCM (page 4, lines 199-200)) into the channel (e.g., the oil-based repair agent epoxy resin was pumped into the hollow pipeline (page 7, lines 376-377)).
Regarding claims 5, 6, 7, 8, Zhang discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, step (c) comprises the step of forming architected channels, forming a plurality of parallel architected channels, forming a plurality of intersecting channels, and the intersecting channels form a diamond pattern.
Regarding claim 10, Zhang discloses that, the phase change material matrix comprises paraffin-based phase change material (page 2, lines 62-63).
Regarding claim 11, it is noticed that, in the teachings of Zhang (page 1, lines 47-49), the insertion of the phase change material into the channel increases the thermal inertia of the cementitious composite material (e.g., due to the inherent behavior of the phase change material).
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 2-4, 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN114683532, English translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Zhang et al. (Programmable construction …, Composite Part B 242 (2022) 110056; June 7, 2022), hereinafter, Zhang’s 056.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang does not explicitly disclose that the filament comprises a polymer filament soluble in a hydroxide solution.
In the same field of endeavor, construction of vasculature, Zhang’s 056 discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, emulsion ink is inserted/printed/embedded into the cement paste matrix (as shown in the first picture of Fig. 1). In process 1 (of Fig. 1), crosslinking of ink by Ca2+ from cement paste occurred. In the following processes 2 and 3 (of Fig. 1), 3D vasculature within cement is formed. Zhang’s 056 discloses that, the ink shaping ability was examined by extruding different emulsions into saturated Ca(OH)2 solution through the needle (page 2, paragraph 2.4, lines 1-3) (as shown in Fig. 5). Further, Zhang’s 056 concludes that, the ALG ink fixes into filament template under the fast crosslinking in Ca2+ enriched cement paste and release the vessel space for above 80% via sacrificing itself (page 9, paragraph 4, lines 3-5).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Zhang to have 3D vasculature within cement as Zhang’s 056 teaches that it is known to have the (printed) filament comprises a polymer filament soluble in a hydroxide solution such as Ca(OH)2. It has been held that the combination of known techniques to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang does not explicitly disclose that, after step (b) and before step c, the step of curing the cementitious composite material.
Zhang’s 056 discloses that, after printing, these cement specimens were placed in a saturated curring room for 24 hours; then, the demolded cement was cured in a saturated calcium hydroxide solution for 28 dyas (page 3, paragraph 2.6, lines 6-8).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Zhang to have 3D vasculature within cement as Zhang’s 056 teaches that it is known to have after step (b) and before step c, the step of curing the cementitious composite material. It has been held that the combination of known techniques to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang does not explicitly disclose that, step (c) comprises the step of dissolving the filament in a pore solution.
Zhang’s 056 discloses that, the ink shaping ability was examined by extruding different emulsions into saturated Ca(OH)2 solution through the needle (page 2, paragraph 2.4, lines 1-3) (as shown in Fig. 5). Zhang’s 056 concludes that, the ALG ink fixes into filament template under the fast crosslinking in Ca2+ enriched cement paste and release the vessel space for above 80% via sacrificing itself (page 9, paragraph 4, lines 3-5).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Zhang to have 3D vasculature within cement as Zhang’s 056 teaches that it is known to have step (c) comprises the step of dissolving the filament in a pore solution (i.e., sacrificing). It has been held that the combination of known techniques to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang does not explicitly disclose that, the increase in the thermal inertia maintains the cementitious composite material at a temperature about 1.5 C different from the environmental temperature.
Zhang’s 056 discloses that, a phase change material, methyl palmitate (MPA), was used as the sealing agent, as MPA’s solid-to-liquid phase change at approximately room temperature (28 C) allows facile release of sealing agents (page 4, paragraph 3.1, lines 1-5 from bottom).
Thus, Zhang’s 056 discloses that, the increase in the thermal inertia maintains the cementitious composite material at the same temperature different from the environmental temperature (or as such the composition as modified by Zhang’s 056 as above would inherently possess the claimed properties).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Zhang to have 3D vasculature within cement as Zhang’s 056 teaches that it is known to have the cementitious composite increases in the thermal inertia maintains the cementitious composite material at a temperature about 1.5 °C different from the environmental temperature. It has been held that the combination of known techniques to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang discloses that, the inner diameter of the pipe prepared by the present invention is preferably 0.05 – 50 mm (page 5, line 276) (overlapping the claimed 1.75 mm).
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Zhang overlaps the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN114683532, English translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Debska et al. (WO2017/043983).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang does not explicitly disclose that, the phase change material comprises a salt-based material.
In the same field of endeavor, construction of cement, Debska discloses that, the phase change material includes the inorganic PCM such as salt hydrates, salts (page 1, lines 3-10).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Zhang to have 3D vasculature within cement as Debska teaches that it is known to have the phase change material comprises a salt-based material. It has been held that the combination of known techniques to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIBIN LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on 571 270 7001. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
