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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the Amendment received on 09/16/2025, the examiner has carefully considered the amendments. It appears the indicated allowability of claim 17 was incorrectly cited. Hwang explicitly exemplifies nanoparticles may have a particle size in the range from 1 to 100 nm, as well as, 10 to 50 nm which is deemed to encompass applicants claimed range from at least 10 to 40 nm. Therefore, claims 1 and 12 will be rejected over the teachings of Hwang. Hwang does not set forth an addition amount of 1 to 15 ppm. Hwang sets forth the addition of said nanoparticles are from 1 to 20 wt. % in the composition which corresponds to 10,000 to 2,000,000 ppm. This is outside of applicants claimed 1 to 15 ppm. Therefore, claims 19 and 20 will be removed from the rejections over Hwang. -
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks/Amendment, filed 9/16/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hwang et al (US2017/0130034) have been fully considered and are persuasive-in-part—see above. Additionally, upon further consideration of the newly amended claims, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Renn (US10,994,473). Ren sets forth fabrication of three-dimensional structures.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 12-14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hwang et al (US2017/0130034).
Hwang sets forth a method of 3D printing (high strength composite material using nanocarbons and metal nanoparticles coated with graphene, and manufacturing method thereof—see [0003].
Regarding claims 1-3, 12-14, and 17: Said method comprises providing a 3D printing composition comprising a thermoplastic polymer or curable resin and metal nanoparticles (claims 1, 12, and 19) to obtain an FDM polymer filament containing uniformly dispersed nanoparticles (claim 19) coated with graphene and carbon nanotubes—see [0012] and [0016]. Said composition is formed into the desired shape (object) by using high strength polymer filament manufacturing, wherein it is possible to manufacture a variety of high-performance product by allowing the composition to harden to form a 3D printed articles/objects. Said method includes depositing layer of melted materials to harden in layers, wherein said depositing is done by extrusion—see [0020].
Regarding claims 2-3, and 12-14: The metal nanoparticles comprise silver nanoparticles, graphing coated metal nano particles may include at least one of copper, aluminum, titanium, iron, cobalt, zinc, silica, gold, silver, platinum, palladium, Ta, W, and Ni and combinations thereof—see [0034]. The silver is deemed to anticipate claim 2 and the gold is deemed to anticipate claim 3. Hwang sets forth said nanoparticles having a diameter from 10 to 100 nm, wherein Hwang explicitly sets forth from 10-40 nm—see [0035]. The particle diameter is deemed to anticipate at least from 10 to 40 nm found in claims 1 and 12.
Regarding claim 17: Hwang additionally sets forth nanoparticles in the size range from 10 to 30 nm and 10-20 nm—see [0035].
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7-9, 11-13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Renn (US 10,994,473), as evidenced by Hutter (Adv. Mat., 2004).
Ren sets forth methods of fabricating three-dimensional structures, wherein in-flight UV illumination modifies the properties of aerosol droplets as they are jetted onto a target surface (build platform), wherein said droplets comprise a UV curable polymer comprises solid metal nanoparticles—see claims 1-3. Ren sets forth the UV light at least partially cures photopolymer droplets or causes the droplets of a solvent-based nanoparticle dispersions to rapidly dry in-flight and the resultant increase in viscosity of said droplets facilitates the formation of free-standing three-dimensional structures—see abstract.
Regarding claims 1-2, 5, 12-13, and 17: Ren sets forth photopolymers, such as acrylic urethane polymers, such as Loctite 3104 (anticipating the curable resin)—see col. 4, 55-57 and Figure 2A (claim 1). Ren sets forth with sufficient specificity photopolymers comprising metal nanoparticles for use in said method—see claims 1-3 (claims 1 and 12). Ren sets forth said metal nanoparticles maybe silver nanoparticles, wherein silver nanoparticles are highly absorbing to UV light and exposing the droplets to UV illumination will heat said nanoparticles and accelerate the solvent evaporation—see col. 6, lines 26-57. Ren sets forth in Figure 9A the increasing optical density (i.e. absorption spectra) of silver nanoparticles at UV wavelengths as the particle size decreases (10 to 40 nm is deemed to anticipate claims 1,12, and 17), wherein the curves are strongly peaked around 410 nm, but the absorption edge extends into the visible, making the in-flight processing possible with common UV LED and Hg lamps—see Figure 9A. It appears from the figure, depending on the particles size the peak absorption shifts. Additionally, Ren sets forth exposing said photopolymer resin to UV radiation at a wavelength of 385 nm. This teaching in conjunction with figure 9A shows the exposure shift into the visible range (400-800 nm, peaks around 410+ nm (claim 5). While not explicitly setting forth a resin composition for 3D printing comprising a curable polymer and metal nanoparticles having a size range from 1 to 40 nm, it is deemed, from the overall teachings of the reference, a skilled artisan could obtain a method of 3D and 3D printing composition comprising a curable photopolymer, such as a urethane acrylate in combination with metal nanoparticles having a particle size of at least from 10 to 40 nm with a reasonable expectation of obtaining a cured free-standing 3D printed article, in absence of evidence to the contrary and/or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 7: Ren sets forth exposing said compositions to UV radiation to cure said photopolymers. Ren sets forth said silver nanoparticles absorb UV light upon exposure which also generates heat to evaporate the solvent, if any, as well as, partially sintering said nanoparticles—see col. 6, lines 29-33 and Figure 9. It is deemed since the radiation exposure cause heat to generate from the nanoparticles said heat will also help cure the photopolymer, i.e., a dual thermal/radiation curing of the resin composition inherently, therefore claim 7 is inherent to the teachings of Renn.
Regarding the properties of claim 8: Ren sets forth the UV exposure also partially sinters (understood to mean compressing by heat without liquification) the nanoparticles, it is deemed the obtained 3D printed object should inherently be stronger with a higher tensile strength due to the dispersed nanoparticles in said printed object in absence of evidence to the contrary and/or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 9: It is deemed the compositions comprising said metal nanoparticles inherently meets the limitation of claims 9, since it is known metal nanoparticles exhibit a phenomenon called localized Surface Plasmon Resonance (LSPR), where incident light at a specific wavelength excites the free electrons in the metal, causing them to oscillate collectively. This absorption and scattering of light occur in highly localized domains near the nanoparticle surface, typically much smaller than the wavelength of light itself, as evidenced by Hutter.
Regarding claim 11: It is deemed these properties are inherent to the cured 3D printed article since Renn sets forth said article comprises sinter metal nanoparticles and therefore should be strong, as well as, setting forth said 3D printed articles are free standing (no support). Since the Patent and Trademark Office is not equipped to conduct experimentation in order to determine whether Applicant’s composition differs and, if so, to what extent, from the discussed reference. Therefore, with the showing of the reference, the burden of establishing non-obviousness by objective evidence is shifted to the Applicants.
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) 4, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang as applied to claims 1-3, 12-14 and 19-20.
Hwang is set forth above as anticipating claims 1-3, 12-14 and 19-20. Hwang does not expressly set forth using the combination of silver and gold; however, Hwang does set forth the metal nanoparticles can be used in combinations. Therefore, it is deemed with the overall teachings of the reference a skilled artisan could obtain a nanoparticle mixture of graphene coating gold and graphene coated silver with a reasonable expectation of successfully obtaining a high strength composite material containing uniformly dispersed nanoparticles, as suggested by Hwang, in absence of evidence to the contrary and/or unexpected results. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 16: Hwang does not expressly set forth the ratio of silver to gold nanoparticles. However, it is deemed at least a 1:1 ratio is within the skill level of an ordinary artisan. Additionally, in view of the overall teachings of the reference, i.e., combinations thereof, and in absence evidence and/or criticality to the contrary it is deemed any ratio would work equally as well, i.e., teaching of combinations. Applicant is reminded "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 10 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The overall teachings of the Hwang does not set forth exposure to radiation, thus no teachings of the limitations found in claim 6. Renn does not set forth down-shifting as defined in the disclosure (gold particles—see [0026] and [0051]. The teachings of Hwang are silent with regard to the concentration of silver nanoparticles in the compositions, as well as, no teachings or suggestions of the limitations found in claim 10. The overall teaching of Hwang teach away from the addition amount of the metal nanoparticles found in claims 18. The only addition amounts of nanoparticles in Ren is outside of the ppm set forth in claim 18—Ren sets forth 7% (70,000 ppm) as the addition amount of nanoparticles (silica).
Claims 19-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The 3D printed product as claimed is differentiated over the closest prior art above based upon the concentration of metal particles of 1 to 15 ppm. The overall teaching of Hwang teach away from the addition amount of the metal nanoparticles found in claims 18. The only addition amounts of nanoparticles in Ren is outside of the ppm set forth in claim 18—Ren sets forth 7% (70,000 ppm) as the addition amount of nanoparticles (silica).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANZA L MCCLENDON whose telephone number is (571)272-1074. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, Heidi Riviere-Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/SANZA L. McCLENDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
SMc