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
Claims 21-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 14 October 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 28 October 2022. These drawings are accepted.
Status of Claims
Responsive to the preliminary amendment, claims 23-24 are cancelled and claim 25 added. Claims 21-22 are withdrawn as directed to a non-elected invention. Claims 1-20 and 25 are currently under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 recites that the organometallic material is a copper metal precursor or isocyanide ligands or nickel metal precursor or titanium precursor. “Isocyanide ligands” are not taught as being an organometallic species in the instant specification, nor would the skilled artisan recognize them as such. The addition of the species of isocyanide ligands is new matter.
New Claim 25 similarly includes a new limitation claiming that isocyanide ligands are an organometallic species. This is similarly not taught in the instant specification and is new matter.
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 6, 7, 13-19, and 25 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 6 recites the limitation, ”said embedded functional structure." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Prior to this an “embedded structure” was presented. A “embedded functional structure” is presented first in claim 6. It is not clear whether the structure needs to be functional in claim 1 or not.
In addition, claim 6 recites that the embedded functional structure is selected from a group that includes “smart functionality.” It is not clear what structures are included or excluded in the structure of “smart functionality.” This appears to be a function per se, rather than a structure. The point of infringement of claim 6 cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
Claim 7 depends on claim 6 and also includes the language “said embedded functional structure.” Claim 7 is indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim 13 recites that “said material jetted in a 2D pattern to form said structure comprises a metallic material.” Claim 1 recites that “one or more material” are jetted. It is not clear whether claim 13 restricts the process of claim 1 to selecting just the one material, or is included within the “one or more” as recited in claim 1. The point of infringement of claim 13 cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
Each one of claims 14 and 16-19 includes a similar limitation and is also indefinite for the same reasons. Claim 15 depends from claim 14 and is also indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim 15 recites that the organometallic material is a copper metal precursor or isocyanide ligands or nickel metal precursor or titanium precursor. “Isocyanide ligands” are not taught as being an organometallic species in the instant specification, nor would the skilled artisan recognize them as such. The addition of the species of isocyanide ligands makes the claim indefinite. Does claim 15 include things other than organometallics or just organometallics?
New Claim 25 similarly includes a new limitation claiming that isocyanide ligands are an organometallic species. This is similarly not taught in the instant specification and is indefinite.
Claim 25 recites the limitation, ”the organometallic material." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Prior to this an “organometallic material” is presented first in claim 9. Applicant’s claim 25 invokes claim 8 and not claim 9. It is not clear whether applicant intends for claim 25 to further limit claim 8 or claim 9. The point of infringement of claim 25 cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
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)(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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 13-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20190022929 A1 (hereinafter “Chaffins”).
Regarding claim 1 Chaffins teaches a method of 3D printing a load cell (see title, Fig 5, or [0015]-[0019]). Chaffins teaches that a body of fused particles includes a plurality of strain sensors ([0016] or claim 1). Chaffins teaches that the strain sensor is embedded into the body (see [0017] or claim 3). Chaffins teaches that powder is fused with aid of a fusing agent ([0017] or claim 6). Chaffins teaches that a layer of powder is presented, onto which two types of fusing ink are selectively dispensed ([0018], Fig 5). The first fusing ink includes conductive particles that become a part of the sensor ([0029]-[0044]), and the second fusing ink includes radiation absorbing particles that become a part of the non-conductive matrix ([0045]-[0049]). The process is thus a “functional binder” jetting as the “fusing inks” of Chaffins include particles which react and remain in the work.
Chaffins teaches that a layer of powder is spread onto a powder bed ([0024]-[0025]). Chaffins teaches that multiple layers of powder are employed in order to make the sensors (see [0026]-[0028]). Chaffins teaches Examples of the process (see [0092]-[0100]). In Example 1 a load cell is made on a bed of nylon particles, selectively depositing three types of ink. In Example 2, the same sensors are made, but they are embedded in a matrix of non-conducting material. Example 2 includes the steps of forming the product by a functional binder jetting, jetting one or more material (silver ink) in the 2 D pattern (layer of a load cell jetted), and completing formation of the part (embedded in a monolithic solid).
Regarding claim 2, Chaffins teaches that a layer of powder is spread onto a powder bed ([0024]-[0025]). Chaffins teaches that the binder is jetted ([0058], Examples 1 and 2). Chaffins teaches that a conductive portion of a binder infiltrates and fuses (see [0024]-[0025] and Figs 3-4). Chaffins teaches that the second fusing ink may also include metal particles, which would have lower conductivity ([0045]-[0046]). Thus Chaffins implicitly teaches that the functional binder infiltrates. Chaffins teaches that multiple layers of powder are employed in order to make the sensors (see [0026]-[0028]).
Regarding claim 3, Chaffins teaches that the fusing agent may be metal nanoparticles ([0017] and claims 1 and 6). Chaffins teaches that the second fusing ink may generally include metal particles, which would have lower conductivity ([0045]-[0046]). Thus Chaffins teaches a mixture of a metal or alloy makes up the bulk. Chaffins further teaches that ceramics may be included in the fusing inks ([0081]-[0084])
Regarding claim 4, Chaffins teaches that the conductive material is silver (Example 1 & 2).
Regarding claim 5, Chaffins teaches that the conductive material is interlocked with the polymer in order to form a composite material ([0025] and Fig 4).
Regarding claim 6, Chaffins teaches a load cell (title, Examples 1 and 2, Figs 1-4, 10, 11).
Regarding claim 7, Chaffins teaches a strain sensor ([0001]-[0002], [0016]-[0017], Examples 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 8, Chaffins teaches that the second fusing ink may also include metal particles, which would have lower conductivity ([0045]-[0046]).
Regarding claim 9, Chaffins teaches that the second fusing ink may also include fusing agent that includes pigments ([0045]-[0046]). Chaffins teaches that the second fusing ink may include pigments that are organometallics ([0081]-[0084]).
Regarding claim 10, Chaffins teaches that the second fusing ink may also include fusing agent that includes pigments ([0045]-[0046]). Chaffins teaches that the second fusing ink may include pigments that are ceramics ([0081]-[0084]).
Regarding claim 13, Chaffins teaches that the conductive particles forming the sensor may include a transition metal such as a copper, as silver or alloys (See [0029]-[0034]. More specifically Chaffins teaches that a load cell is made from silver ink (Example 2).
Regarding claims 14-15, Chaffins teaches that the conductive metal particles in the fusing ink for the sensors may be stabilized as by addition of a surfactant (See [0033]). Chaffins teaches that this includes a ligand ([0033]).
Regarding claim 16, Chaffins teaches further that precursors of metal such as oxides or salt may be used ([0034]).
Regarding claim 17, Chaffins teaches that the metal particles may generally have a size of 30-70 nm (see [0032]). Chaffins teaches Example 2 in which the metal particles are 20 nm (see Examples 1-2), falling in the range claimed and anticipating the range. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 19, Chaffins teaches that the conductive ink may include polymer particles (see [0035]).
Regarding claim 20, Chaffins teaches a heat treatment (see Examples 1 and 2 and [0024] and [0032]).
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.
Claim(s) 11-12, 18 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaffins.
Regarding claims 11-12, Chaffins teaches that the fusing agent includes metal nanoparticles (See [0017] or claims 1 and 6). Chaffins does not specify the size of the metal nanoparticles included in the fusing agent.
Chaffins teaches that the conductive ink includes metal nanoparticles as the conductive particles to form the sensor (see [0029]-[0032]). Chaffins teaches that the conductive ink includes metal particles with a size range of 10-200 nm ([0032]). Chaffins teaches that the size of the particles affects the sintering of the particles ([0032]).
It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan at time of filing to have practiced the invention of Chaffins, and to have adjusted the size of the metal nanoparticles in the fusing agent because Chaffins teaches that the size of the particles is a results-effective variable with regard to the sintering behavior ([0032]). The optimization of this variable would have been simply investigated by the skilled artisan upon a reading of Chaffins. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 18, Chaffins teaches that the metal particles in the conductive ink for forming the sensors may generally have a size of 10-200 nm (see [0032]). The broad range taught by Chaffins for the metal particle size overlaps the claimed range, and establishes a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to have selected a particle with size as claimed because Chaffins teaches the same utility over an overlapping range. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 25, Chaffins teaches that the fusing agent includes metal nanoparticles (See [0017] or claims 1 and 6). Chaffins teaches that this second fusing ink may include a fusing agent of a metal with passivated surfaces such that the metal will not fuse together, thus not providing the enhanced conductivity (see [0045]). Chaffins teaches that for the conductive ink, the metal particle may be presented in a passivated form for dispersion (see [0033]). Chaffins teaches that the passivation means is an organometallic ligand (see [0033]).
It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan at time of filing to have practiced the invention of Chaffins, and to have passivated the ,metal used as a fusing agent, and further to have chosen the dispersion creating an organometallic metal precursor for the passivating means, because Chaffins describes this is a suitable means of passivating ([0033]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20150069649 A1, US 20170297111 A1, US 20180237648 A1, and US 20180305266 A1 are each exemplary of binder jetting procedures incorporating functional metal nanoparticles. US 20160325356 A1 teaches that ceramic nanoparticles may be used in a binder jetting.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6510. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
CHRISTOPHER S. KESSLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1759