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 .
Claims 19-24 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group Il, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/15/24.
Applicant's election of Group I in the reply filed on 07/15/24 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 9, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hatono Hironori et al (Japanese Patent: 2010/133019, here after 019).
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected. 019 teaches a method of mask-free printing of dry nanoparticles[Technical-Field], the method comprising generating a dry nanoparticle stream from a feedstock material(107) in an atmospheric gas flow(100 kPa)[page 4 paragraph 1, last lines] using a laser ablation system using a single laser beam(112) at atmospheric pressure[fig. 1], the dry nanoparticle stream uncontaminated by a fluidic carrier medium(argon or helium gas 101 do not make contamination), wherein the dry nanoparticles uncontaminated by a fluidic carrier medium and unsintered are directed to a substrate(115) through a nozzle(106) by the gas flow(102) in a dry state and adhere to the substrate in a mask-free print[fig. 1; and wherein the particles are printed on the substrate as a coating[page 5 first paragraph]. Although 019 does not teach the coating(film) is porous, however teaches sufficient kinetic energy form a relatively dense structure (not theorical density) [page 7 paragraph 4], which means there is some porosity in the structure.
Claim 2 is rejected. 019 teaches heating the atmospheric gas flow prior to printing on the substrate (with heater 114) [fig. 1].
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected. 019 teaches the feedstock(target) is a ceramic [page 4 paragraph 5].
Claim 17 is rejected as 019 teaches the substrate115) is glass [page 8 line 6].
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.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatono Hironori et al (Japanese Patent: 2010/133019, here after 019).
Claim 10 is rejected. Although 019 does not teach the distance between
the nozzle tip and substrate is 0.1 mm to 15 mm. However, 019 teaches the particles ejected from the nozzle with high speed to collide to substrate with high kinetic energy [page 5 paragraph 1]. Therefor the distance between the nozzle and substrate is a result effective variable and has to be optimized. If the distance between the nozzle and substrate is very high, the particles do not have enough energy to attach to the substrate surface, if the distance is very small, the particles with very high energy may cause damage to substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of 019 where the distance between
the nozzle tip and substrate is 0.1 mm to 15 mm, because it is a result effective variable and has to be optimized.
Claim 11 is rejected. Although 019 does not teach velocity of the gas leaving the nozzle is 0.05 m/s to 1000 m/s. However, 019 teaches the particles ejected from the nozzle with high speed(velocity) to collide to substrate with high kinetic energy [page 5 paragraph 1]. Therefor the velocity of the gas leaving the nozzle is a result effective variable and has to be optimized. If the velocity of the gas leaving the nozzle is very low, the particles do not have enough energy to attach to the substrate surface, if the velocity is very high, the particles with very high energy may cause damage to substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of 019 where the velocity of the gas leaving the nozzle is 0.05 m/s to 1000 m/s, because it is a result effective variable and has to be optimized.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatono Hironori et al (Japanese Patent: 2010/133019, here after 019), further in view of Bing Liu et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2008/0006524, here after 524).
Claim 15 is rejected. 019 teaches using Nd:YAG laser for laser ablation of oxides[page 8 first paragraph], and does not teach pulse duration of the laser beam. 524 teaches a method of laser ablation for making nanoparticles of oxides where the laser is Nd:YAG with pulse duration of the laser beam is in a range of a few femtoseconds to a few tens of picoseconds [abstract, 0001, 0005]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of 019 laser pulse duration is based on 524, because it is suitable laser pulse duration for laser ablation of oxides.
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatono Hironori et al (Japanese Patent: 2010/133019, here after 019), further in view of Michael J. Renn et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2004/0197493, here after 493).
Claims 25-26 are rejected. 019 does not teach sintering the powder after printing. 493 teaches a method of direct writing particles where after printing the (oxide) particles, particles sintered thermally or by laser beam to form dense layer [0105]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of 019 and sinter the particles after deposition on substrate, because it helps further densification of the layer.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatono Hironori et al (Japanese Patent: 2010/133019, here after 019), further in view of Michael J. Renn et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2004/0197493, here after 493), and Michael J. Renn et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2005/0129383, here after 383).
019 does not teach sintering the powder after printing. 493 teaches a method of direct writing particles where after printing the (oxide) particles, particles sintered thermally to form dense layer [0105]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of 019 and sinter the particles after deposition on substrate, because it helps further densification of the layer. They do not teach the sintering by heating in furnace. 383 teaches heating in furnace to sinter the particles by laser beam or in furnace [0072]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of 019, and 493 and sinter the particles after deposition on substrate in furnace, because it is alternative way for thermally sintering the particles.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 10/21/25, with respect to 35 U.S.C 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C 112(a) of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argument that Mahjouri-Samani does not teach first printing and then sintering is not persuasive, as neither Mahjouri-Samani nor Wang are not a part of rejection anymore and Hironori teaches depositing particles which are not sintered on surface of substrate (see claim rejection above). Although Hironori does not teach the deposited print is porous however teaches the density is relatively high which means there is some porosity within the print.
The applicant argument regarding the rest of claims is not persuasive as is not part of rejection (please see claim rejection above).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718