DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 03/31/2026.
3. Claims 1, 4-19 are pending. Claims 1, 4-8, 16-17 are under examination on the merits. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 2,18-19 are cancelled. Claim 3 is previously cancelled. Claims 9-15 are withdrawn to a non-elected invention from further consideration.
4. The objections and rejections not addressed below are deemed withdrawn.
5. Applicant's arguments filed 03/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, thus claims 1, 4-8, 16-17 stand rejected as set forth in Office action dated 04/19/2019 and further discussed in the Response to Arguments below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 4-8, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Rudisill et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0333914 A1, hereinafter “’914”) in view of Yu et al. (CN 10450 5265 A, hereinafter “’265”).
Regarding claim 1: ‘914 teaches a kit for three-dimensional (3D) printing (Page 1, [0001]), comprising: an ultraviolet (UV) light fusing agent consisting of an aqueous vehicle consisting of water (Page 3, [0031]), a non-ionic surfactant (Page 3, [0033]), and a co-solvent (Page 3, [0031]), selected from the group consisting of triethylene glycol or tetraethylene glycol (Page 3, [0035]), and a plasmonic metal nanoparticle such as silver nanoparticles (Page 3, [0028]) that i) provides absorption enhancement at radiation wavelengths ranging from about 340 nm to about 399 nm (according to the instant application US Pub. No. 2023/0364859 A1, Page 9, [0099], as depicted, each of the silver nanoparticle formulations exhibited absorption peak within the wavelength range from 340 nm to 440 nm. Based on these results, UV LED radiation sources with emission at 365 nm or 395 nm or 450 nm may be suitable for use during 3D printing with some silver nanoparticles, depending on their size), and ii) is present in the fusing agent 26 ranges from about 1.0 wt % to about 20.0 wt % based on the total wt % of the fusing agent 26. In some examples, the amount of the plasmonic resonance absorber present in the fusing agent 26 ranges from about 1.0 wt % up to about 10.0 wt %. In other examples, the amount of the plasmonic resonance absorber present in the fusing agent 26 ranges from greater than 4.0 wt % up to about 15.0 wt %. It is believed that these plasmonic resonance absorber loadings provide a balance between the fusing agent 26 having jetting reliability and electromagnetic radiation absorbance efficiency (Page 3, [0029]), and a detailing agent including a surfactant, a co-solvent, and water (Page 6, [0067]). ’914 does not expressly teach the co-solvent is selected from diethylene glycol.
However, ‘268 teaches a manufacturing a mini-type supercapacitor by adopting a 3D printing technology (Page 6/9, [0002]) comprising a solution of silver nanoparticles with a size in the range of 25-30 nm which are dispersed in a mixed solvent of diethylene glycol and water at a volume ratio of 1:1, with a mass fraction of silver nanoparticles of 5-35% (Page 2/9, 2nd para, lines 5-8; Page 7/9, [0011]; Page 8/9, [0025]) with benefit of providing to obtain a stable conductive ink in a dispersion solvent (Page 7/9, [0025]).
In an analogous art of the kit for three-dimensional (3D) printing, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the co-solvent by ‘914, so as to include the dispersion of silver nanoparticles in mixed water and co-solvent such as diethylene glycol as taught by ‘265, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing to obtain a stable conductive ink in a dispersion solvent suggested by ‘265 (Page 7/9, [0025]).
Thus, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since the substitution of equivalents (i.e., in view of the art recognized functional equivalence of the two
glycol solvents) requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the equivalency. In re Fount USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v Linde Air Products Co., 85 USPQ 328 (USSC).
Regarding claim 4: ‘914 teaches the kit for three-dimensional (3D) printing (Page 1, [0001]), wherein the plasmonic metal nanoparticle is selected from the group consisting of silver nanoparticles, gold nanoparticles, aluminum nanoparticles, copper nanoparticles, and combinations thereof (Page 3, [0028]).
Regarding claim 5: ‘914 teaches the kit for three-dimensional (3D) printing (Page 1, [0001]), wherein the plasmonic metal nanoparticle has a particle size ranging from about 10 nm to about 70 nm (Page 2, [0027]).
Regarding claim 6: ‘914 teaches the kit for three-dimensional (3D) printing (Page 1, [0001]), further comprising a colored ink selected from the group consisting of a black ink, a cyan ink, a magenta ink, and a yellow ink (Page 5, [0053]).
Regarding claim 7: ‘914 teaches the kit for three-dimensional (3D) printing (Page 1, [0001]), further comprising a polymeric build material composition (Page 2, [0019]; Page 12, [0143]).
Regarding claim 8: ‘914 teaches the kit for three-dimensional (3D) printing (Page 1, [0001]), wherein the polymeric build material composition includes a polyamide, a polyolefin, a thermoplastic polyamide, a thermoplastic polyurethane, a styrenic block copolymer, a thermoplastic polyolefin elastomer, a thermoplastic vulcanizate, a thermoplastic copolyester, a thermoplastic fluoropolymer, a polyether block amide, or a combination thereof (Page 2, [0019]).
Regarding claim 16: ‘914 teaches a kit for three-dimensional (3D) printing (Page 1, [0001]), comprising: an ultraviolet (UV) light fusing agent including an aqueous vehicle including water, (Page 3, [0031]) and a co-solvent selected from the group consisting of triethylene glycol or tetraethylene glycol (Page 3, [0035]), and a plasmonic metal nanoparticle such as silver nanoparticles (Page 3, [0028]) that i) provides absorption enhancement at radiation wavelengths ranging from about 340 nm to about 399 nm (i.e., according to the instant application US Pub. No. 2023/0364859 A1, Page 9, [0099], as depicted, each of the silver nanoparticle formulations exhibited absorption peak within the wavelength range from 340 nm to 440 nm. Based on these results, UV LED radiation sources with emission at 365 nm or 395 nm or 450 nm may be suitable for use during 3D printing with some silver nanoparticles, depending on their size), and ii) is present in the fusing agent 26 ranges from about 1.0 wt % to about 20.0 wt % based on the total wt % of the fusing agent 26. In some examples, the amount of the plasmonic resonance absorber present in the fusing agent 26 ranges from about 1.0 wt % up to about 10.0 wt %. In other examples, the amount of the plasmonic resonance absorber present in the fusing agent 26 ranges from greater than 4.0 wt % up to about 15.0 wt %. It is believed that these plasmonic resonance absorber loadings provide a balance between the fusing agent 26 having jetting reliability and electromagnetic radiation absorbance efficiency (Page 3, [0029]), and a detailing agent including a surfactant, a co-solvent, and water (Page 6, [0067]). ’914 does not expressly teach the co-solvent is selected from diethylene glycol.
However, ‘268 teaches a manufacturing a mini-type supercapacitor by adopting a 3D printing technology (Page 6/9, [0002]) comprising a solution of silver nanoparticles with a size in the range of 25-30 nm which are dispersed in a mixed solvent of diethylene glycol and water at a volume ratio of 1:1, with a mass fraction of silver nanoparticles of 5-35% (Page 2/9, 2nd para, lines 5-8; Page 7/9, [0011]; Page 8/9, [0025]) with benefit of providing to obtain a stable conductive ink in a dispersion solvent (Page 7/9, [0025]).
In an analogous art of the kit for three-dimensional (3D) printing, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the co-solvent by ‘914, so as to include the dispersion of silver nanoparticles in mixed water and co-solvent such as diethylene glycol as taught by ‘265, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing to obtain a stable conductive ink in a dispersion solvent suggested by ‘265 (Page 7/9, [0025]).
Thus, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since the substitution of equivalents (i.e., in view of the art recognized functional equivalence of the two
glycol solvents) requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the equivalency. In re Fount USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v Linde Air Products Co., 85 USPQ 328 (USSC).
Regarding claim 17: ‘914 teaches the kit for three-dimensional (3D) printing (Page 1, [0001]), comprising: an ultraviolet (UV) light fusing agent including an aqueous vehicle including water, (Page 3, [0031]) and a co-solvent selected from the group consisting of triethylene glycol or tetraethylene glycol (Page 3, [0035]; diethylene glycol (DEG) and triethylene glycol (TEG) are homologues) in an amount of from about 2 wt% active to about 80 wt% active, based on the total weight of the UV light fusing agent (Page 3, [0035], overlapping ranges).
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed 03/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive,
In response to the Applicant’s argument that the claimed UV light fusing agent (FA) consisting of i) the aqueous vehicle which is consisting of water, a non-ionic surfactant, and a co-solvent selected from the group consisting of diethylene glycol, ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, ethoxylated glycerol, glycerol, and combinations thereof) and ii) the plasmonic metal nanoparticle, and nothing else while Rudisill ’914 discloses the primer fusing agent disclosed by Rudisill includes a zwitterionic stabilizer.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. ‘914 teaches the printing system 10 includes an inkjet applicator 24A, which may contain examples of the fusing agent 26 or 26′ (i.e., an alternative option, and not together) as shown in Fig.1 (Page 2, [0023]). The fusing agents 26, 26′ generally include an aqueous or non-aqueous vehicle and a plasmonic resonance absorber dispersed therein (Page 2, [0024]). ‘914 teaches when the FA vehicle is water-based, the aqueous nature of the fusing agent 26 enables the fusing agent 26 to penetrate, at least partially, into the layer of the build material particles 16. The build material particles 16 may be hydrophobic, and the presence of the co-solvent, the surfactant, and/or the dispersing additive in the fusing agent 26 when the fusing agent 26 is water-based or non-aqueous based may assist in obtaining a particular wetting behavior (i.e., read on the aqueous vehicle “consisting of” language; Page 3, [0031]).
In response to the Applicant’s argument that Rudisill ‘914 discloses that the silver nanoparticles are present in the fusing agent ranging from about 1.0 wt% to about 20.0 wt% based on the total wt% of the fusing agent. Although the plasmonic metal nanoparticle loading (of from about 0.5 wt% up to 2 wt%) recited in Applicant's claims overlaps the teachings of Rudisill, Applicant submits that the low plasmonic metal nanoparticle loading is critical to the UV light fusing agent as claimed.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. It is submitted that in cases involving overlapping ranges, our predecessor court have consistently held that even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness. Selecting a narrow range from within a somewhat broader range disclosed in a prior art reference is no less obvious than identifying a range that simply overlaps a disclosed range. In fact, when as here, the claimed ranges are completely encompassed by the prior art, the conclusion is even more compelling than in cases of mere overlap. [(Citations omitted.)].
Turning to Applicant’s argument regarding unexpected results, Examiner agrees that Applicant’s proffered evidence of the Table 2 of Examples 2 of the instant Specification, is insufficient to establish unexpected results for claim 1. Whether an invention has produced unexpected results is a question of fact. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 1997). "[T]here is no hard and-fast rule for determining whether evidence of unexpected results is sufficient to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness." Kao Corp. v. 7 Appeal 2017-004282 Application 13/877,156 Unilever US., Inc., 441 F.3d 963, 970 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692-93 (Fed. Cir.1990) ("[e]ach situation must be considered on its own facts."). However, a party asserting unexpected results as evidence of nonobviousness has the burden of proving that the results are unexpected. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-70 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Such burden requires Applicant to proffer factual evidence that actually shows unexpected results relative to the closest prior art, see In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991), and that is reasonably commensurate in scope with the protection sought by claim 1, In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035 (CCPA 1980); In re Hyson, 453 F.2d 764, 786 (CCPA 1972). "[I]t is not enough to show that results are obtained which differ from those obtained in the prior art: that difference must be shown to be an unexpected difference." In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972). The extent of the showing relied upon by Applicant also must reasonably support the entire scope of the claims at issue. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005). It is submitted that the evidence of the silver nanoparticle represents only one species of the plasmonic metal nanoparticle with loading of 2 wt% with a specific co-solvent such as diethylene glycol in Ex. 1 of Table 2, where the claim to a sub-genus is being sought (i.e. in the range of 0.5 wt% up to 2 wt%, and a co-solvent selected from the group consisting of diethylene glycol, ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, ethoxylated glycerol, glycerol, and combinations thereof). It is unclear as why only the upper range of the plasmonic silver nanoparticle with diethylene glycol is chosen as representative of the plasmonic metal nanoparticle. The showing of one species is insufficient to overcome a sub-genus. In re Shokal 113 USPQ 283 (CCPA 1957). On the other hand the showing of unexpected results does not have to cover every species within the sub-genus. Only a "representative" number need be shown. Ex parte Winters 11 USPQ 2d 1387, 1388 (BPAI 1~89).
The applicant is invited to submit any declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 to overcome the rejection based upon reference applied under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as set forth in this Office action to compare their invention product (i.e., a kit for 3D printing) and show the product is actually different from and unexpectedly better than the teachings of the references. It is noted that the burden is on the applicant to establish that the results are in fact unexpected, unobvious, and of statistical and practical significance. See MPEP 716.02(b). See also Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992), and such a showing also must be commensurate with the scope of the claimed invention, i.e., must bear a reasonable correlation to the scope of the claimed invention.
9. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Examiner Information
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bijan Ahvazi, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-3449. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9.00 A.M. -7 P.M..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. 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.
/Bijan Ahvazi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
04/15/2026
bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights