DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. The applicant’s amendment filed 12 January 2026 has been entered into the record. The amendment to Claim 3 did not add any new subject matter. Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are currently pending and under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Rijk et al. in view of Cohen et al.
De Rijk et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0161738 A1 – previously presented) is directed toward a method of additive manufacture of a waveguide as well as waveguide devices manufactured according to this method. Cohen et al. (US Patent No. 10,254,499 B1 – previously presented) is directed toward additive manufacturing of active devices using dielectric, conductive and magnetic materials.
Regarding Claim 1, De Rijk et al. discloses a method of additive manufacturing to make a waveguide (title) comprising multiple steps. De Rijk et al. teaches the first step of additive manufacturing a core with an opening as depicted in FIG. 6A, FIG. 6B, or FIG. 7 and explained in ¶13. De Rijk et al. further indicates the inner walls of the core and the opening are coated with an electrically conductive coating (¶13). De Rijk et al. also indicates the holes allow for uniform deposition of conductive metal inside the core in ¶31-34 and even discusses electroplating all the inner surfaces and closed channel, but is unclear if said electroplating is electrolytic or electroless. De Rijk does not disclose additive manufacturing a portion of the anode through the hole, application of electric current between the anode and cathode, nor removal of the anode after electrodeposition or electroplating.
Cohen discloses that when the interior of the channel (i.e.: the opening of the instant application) shown in FIG. 110(a), 110(b), 110(c), 110(d), 110(e), 110(f), and 110(g) is completely, metallized, the channel can form a wave guide (Col. 107 lines 40-44). Cohen et al. indicates that during the printing process (i.e.: additive manufacturing of the present), wires can be incorporated into the fabricated object (i.e.: the core of the present invention) which functions as anode for the electroplating process that is used to coat the interior walls of the channel (Col. 107 lines 53-67 to Col. 108 lines 1-3).
Additionally, Cohen describes that the wire described above that is useable as anode for electrodepositing a metallic film may alternatively be formed by laying a sheet of conductive material over the layer and selectively embedding regions of the material (by using heat). After the electrodeposition has occurred, the non-embedded regions is capable of being removed by brushing, or exposing to chemical as per Col. 41 Lines 33-40. This limitation corresponds to the removal of the anode subsequent to the electrodeposition step of Claim 1.
As explained in De Rijk et al. in ¶8, waveguides consists of a hollow device whose shape and proportions determine the propagation characteristics for a given wavelength of the electromagnetic signal meaning that leaving the anode present in the interior channel after the electrodeposition would adversely affect the properties of the waveguide. Therefore its removal is critical for the proper functioning of the device.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of manufacturing a wave guide device of De Rijk et al. with the electrophoretic application of a conductive coating using the removable anode taught by Cohen et al. with the reasonable expectation of forming a conductive layer with precise control over the thickness and identity of the deposited metallic species (i.e.: Cu, Au, or Ag) resulting in precise control over the operating frequencies of the wave guide device.
Regarding Claim 2, De Rijk et al. in view of Cohen et al. discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein said deposition is carried out by immersing the core in a metal ion solution bath (e.g.: “a suitable plating bath”) and electrodepositing the conductive layer onto the walls of said opening by applying electric current between said anode and cathode as indicated in Cohen et al. in Col. 107 lines 53-67 to Col. 108 lines 1-3. Moreover, the process of electroplating necessarily requires the application of current between the anode and the cathode.
Regarding Claim 3, De Rijk et al. in view of Cohen et al. discloses the method of Claim 1, comprising said electropolishing step by applying electric current between said anode and cathode as evidenced by Cohen et al. where it is explained that the embedded wires (i.e.: anode/electrodes) with appropriate bath chemistry allow electrochemical processes such as polishing (i.e.: “electropolishing”) (Col. 107 lines 63-67 and Col. 108 lines 1-3). Application of current resulting in electropolishing would necessarily affect the walls.
Regarding Claim 4, De Rijk et al. in view of Cohen et al. discloses the method of Claim 1 wherein said core is formed from an electrically conductive material as per ¶26 of De Rijk et al.
Regarding Claim 5, De Rijk et al. in view of Cohen et al. discloses the method of Claim 4, wherein said core and said anode are formed of the same metallic material and made in a single and same manufacturing step. De Rijk explains that the core can be conductive meaning it is made of materials such as gold, copper, and silver (¶17 and ¶26) and Cohen indicates the bare wires made of copper or gold (Col 105 lines 61-65) are incorporated into the fabricated object (i.e.: “the core”) during the printing of said object (Col 107 Lines 52-61). The incorporation step of the anode into the fabricated object of Cohen et al. is analogous to the single and same manufacturing step as required by Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 6, De Rijk et al. in view of Cohen et al. discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein said core is formed of an insulating material and is coated with a conductive layer serving as the cathode during electrodeposition as explained in Cohen et al. in Col. 107 lines 61-65 that electroplating may be used to coat the fabricated object and then electroplating is conducted to thicken the electroconductive layer.
Regarding Claim 7, De Rijk et al. in view of Cohen et al. discloses the method of Claim 1 comprising the additive manufacturing of detachable portions for holding the anode in the opening (i.e.: channel in Cohen at al.) at least during the manufacturing of the core as depicted in FIG. 110e and FIG. 110f in Cohen et al. where the support posts are shown. The support posts are capable of supporting a wire coated in dielectric or a bare wire as indicated in Col. 105 lines 62-65 and Col. 6 lines 1-17 in Cohen et al.
Regarding Claim 8, De Rijk et al. in view of Cohen et al. discloses the method of Claim 7, wherein said detachable portions are detached prior to electrodeposition as explained in Cohen et al. in Col. 106 lines 28-32.
Regarding Claim 9, De Rijk et al. in view of Cohen et al. discloses the method of Claim 8 is held by temporary holding means after detachment of said detachable portions during the electrodeposition as explained in Cohen et al. in Col. 108 lines 4-27.
Regarding Claim 10, De Rijk et al. in view of Cohen et al. discloses the method of Claim 7, wherein said detachable portions are electrically insulated from the anode and/or from the cathode, or form an electrical insulation between the anode and are detached after the electrodeposition (i.e.: electroplating) as depicted in FIG. 110f and 110g in Cohen et al with further explanation in Col. 105 lines 62-67 to Col. 106 lines 1-32 where the supports of the bare wire are made of polymers (that are non-conductive).
Response to Arguments
6. The rejection of Claim 3 under 112(b) is withdrawn by the examiner due to the amendment of said claim.
7. Applicant's arguments filed 12 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the argument on pg. 5 of the applicant’s response pertaining to the additive manufacturing of at least part of the anode, the examiner finds the applicant’s interpretation of the language of the claims to be overly narrow. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner is interpreting placement of the wire (i.e.: electrically conductive portion of the anode) and additive manufacturing the portion surrounding the anode/wire to be included in the limitations of Claim 1 (i.e.: additive manufacturing of at least part of the anode) as being taught by the combination of De Rijk in view Cohen.
In response to the applicant’s argument on pg. 6 about removal of the anode or the detachable nature of the anode as not being taught by the combination of De Rijk in view of Cohen, the examiner points to the rejection for Claim 1 has clarified the explanation and updated the mapping to other portions of the specification of Cohen above. Despite not changing the combination of references, a second non-final office action has been issued due to the clarification of the rejection.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SYLVESTER whose telephone number is (703)756-5536. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:15 AM to 4:30 PM EST.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
9. 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.
/KEVIN SYLVESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights