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 .
Claim Status
An amendment, filed 1/20/2026, is acknowledged. Claims 1, 4, 9, and 13 are amended; Claim 10 is canceled; Claims 16-20 are newly added. Claims 1-9, 11-13, 16-20 are currently pending.
The rejection of claims 10 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9, 11-13, 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keoshkerian (US 2019/0085195) in view of Xu (US 2019/0054536).
With respect to Claim 1, Keoshkerian teaches a method of three-dimensional printing, the method comprising a jettable ink build material composition comprising a solution of a metal salt and a liquid carrier, wherein the jettable build material may be directly deposited onto a substrate/print platform by an inkjet printing process, forming a first solidified metal layer (i.e. interconnected metal network) by reducing the metal salt in the printed layer of the build material composition to form desired metal features on a substrate. (para. 12, 14-17, 48-56). Furthermore, as Keoshkerian teaches that the jettable build material may be used in two-dimensional or three-dimensional printing methods, including depositing and treating the ink build material to build up structural features, the reference is interpreted to teach the repeated deposition and reduction steps to build up a three-dimensional structure. (para. 48-56). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teachings of Keoshkerian to deposit one or more additional layers of the jettable build material followed by steps of reducing the metal salt in the build material to form additional layers/networks of interconnected metal over the first solidified layer, in order to build up a three-dimensional printed object.
Keoshkerian is silent as to where the three-dimensional printed object comprises a porous structure.
Xu teaches a method of 3D printing an object with a metal-containing ink, the object comprising a porous metal structure comprising an interconnected scaffold/network with predetermined voids (deemed to constitute a first controlled porosity) and having a controlled porosity within the metal structure, wherein the porous structure may be infiltrated with a material to at least partially fill the porous structure. (para. 2, 8-11, 116, 121, 142, 157-159, 280, 310; Figs. 27-31). Xu teaches wherein such 3D printed objects are useful in medical, microwave, and microelectron-mechanical applications. (para. 3).
Thus, Keoshkerian and Xu are both drawn to 3D printing methods to form a metal 3D printed object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Keoshkerian, to form a 3D printed object having an interconnected metal network with a controlled porous structure, as taught by Xu, in order to form a 3D printed object having enhanced utility for use in medical, microwave, and microelectron-mechanical applications. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a three-dimensional printing process for forming a metal object, as taught by Keoshkerian, may be used to form a wide range of simple or complex objects. Xu teaches the utility of 3D printing a metal porous structure for the above described applications. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a known method (Keoshkerian) for forming a known structure (Xu) with a predictable result of success.
With respect to Claim 2, Keoshkerian teaches wherein the metal salt may be a copper salt and in particular, may be in the form of a metal nitrate, and thus, teaches wherein the metal salt may be a copper nitrate. (para. 22, 28).
With respect to Claim 3, Keoshkerian teaches wherein the build material composition further comprises an initiator for reducing the metal salt, thus, constating a “reducing agent.” (abstract; para. 30-38).
With respect to Claim 4, Keoshkerian teaches wherein the reducing agent may be present in an amount of about 0.5 to about 2 molarity of the metal salt. (para. 38); rejection of claim 3 above). The reference is deemed to teach a content of reducing agent, when converted to weight% based on a particular metal salt, overlapping the instantly claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claim overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claim 6, Keoshkerian teaches wherein the reduction of the metal salt is initiated by heating the printed build material composition to a temperature of, for example 70-200° C. (para. 32, 36, 58-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a heating temperature from the portion of the overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claim overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claim 9, Keoshkerian teaches wherein the reducing of the metal salt may comprising heating in air, and wherein the metal of the metal salt may comprise, for example, copper or silver, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that copper or silver heated in the presence of air (containing oxygen) would necessarily result in at least some degree of oxidation during or after the reducing of the metal salt. (para. 28, 59). See also MPEP 2112.01.
With respect to Claim 11, the claim recites “to reduce any metal oxide to a metal,” and therefore, is drawn to a conditional limitation. “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.” MPEP 2111.04. Furthermore, the Keoshkerian teaches wherein the method may comprise heating under a reducing atmosphere, and thus, would result in reducing any metal oxide in the interconnected metal network to a metal. (para. 59).
With respect to Claim 12, Xu teaches 3D printing a structure comprising a scaffold structure ( first form of controlled porosity) and also having a controlled content of porosity within the metal filaments (second form of controlled porosity) making up the scaffold structure. (see, e.g., fig. 28-29; see also para. 280, 310). Xu is deemed to teach controlling the print density of the build material in each layer to control a first and second porosity of the 3D printed object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Keoshkerian to form a scaffold structure having controlled first and second porosities by controlling a print density of the build material, as taught by Xu, in order to form a metal object with desired utility and mechanical properties useful for, for example, in medical or microwave applications.
With respect to claim 13, Xu teaches wherein the metal object is infiltrated, for example with copper to at least partially fill the porous structure of the 3D printed object, thereby minimizing porosity of the 3D printed object. (see rejection of claim 1 above; para. 121, 142, 257, 258; Figs. 28-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Keoshkerian to incorporate a material to at least partially fill the porous structure of the 3D printed object by infiltrating a metal, as taught by Xu, in order to minimize the porosity of the 3D printed object.
With respect to Claim 16, Keoshkerian teaches depositing the build material on a substrate/print platform that may contain a layered material or no additional material and is formed of, for example, silicon, glass, or plastic. (para. 49-52, 57). Thus, the reference teaches wherein the print platform is devoid of a particulate build material.
With respect to claim 17, Keoshkerian teaches wherein the heating may comprise heating the substrate/printing platform. (para. 60). Thus, the reference is deemed to teach wherein the heating may comprise heating the print platform. Additionally, Keoshkerian teaches wherein “[e]xamples of heating techniques include thermal heating (for example, at hot plate, an oven, and a burner), infra-red (“IR”) radiation, laser beam, flash light, microwave radiation, or ultraviolet (“UV”) radiation, or a combination thereof.” (para. 60). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that one or more of the heating techniques disclosed by the reference are conventionally or may be carried out via heating lamps. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a conventional and cost-effective heating technique, such as one comprising a heating lamp to perform the heating step/technique of Keoshkerian. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to position the heating lamps over the print platform in order to enable sufficient thermal energy to reach the build material.
With respect to Claim 20, the claim recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1, differing in that it recites a closed composition build material having additional optional elements. Keoshkerian in view of Xu teach each of the claimed method steps of claim 1, and thus, also of claim 20 and Keoshkerian teaches a build material that may consist of a metal salt, reducing agent, and optional liquid carrier (see, e.g., para. 14) meeting the instant claim.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keoshkerian (US 2019/0085195) in view of Xu (US 2019/0054536), as applied to claim 1 (with respect to claim 18) and claim 3 (with respect to claims 4-5), further in view of Nauka et al. (WO 2019/088965)(previously cited).
In the alternative to the above rejection of Claim 4, Keoshkerian teaches wherein the build material composition further comprises an initiator for reducing the metal salt, thus, constating a “reducing agent.” (abstract; para. 30-38; rejection of claim 3 above). The reference teaches a content of the reducing agent in the build material in terms of molarity, but is silent as to the weight percentage.
Nakua teaches a method of three-dimensional printing comprising a jettable composition comprising a metal salt and a co-solvent (here also a reducing agent), wherein the reducing agent such as 2-pyrrolidone (equivalent to 2-pyrrolidinone) may be added in an amount of about 1-50 wt% based on the total weight of the patterning fluid, deemed to overlap the claimed range. (para. 55-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Keosherian in view of Lee to select a known content of a reducing agent suitable for a method comprising jetting a composition comprising the reducing agent and a metal salt, such as 1-50 weight%, as taught by Nakua, in order to obtain a suitable amount of reducing agent effect in the composition. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claimed composition overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claim 5, Keoshkerian teaches wherein the build material composition further comprises a reducing agent (abstract; para. 30-38; rejection of claim 3 above); however, the reference is silent as to the wherein the reducing agent is 2-pyrrolidone.
As detailed above, Nakua teaches the further addition of 2-pyrrolidone (equivalent to 2-pyrrolidinone) as a co-solvent. (para. 56-57). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Keoshkerian in view of Lee to include a content of 2-pyrrolidinone, as a co-solvent and/or reducing agent, in order to improve the build material’s jetting properties and/or capability of reducing the metal salt to a metal to form an interconnected metal structure.
With respect to Claim 18, Keoshkerian teaches wherein the metal salt is a range of metal salt compounds, but does not specifically teach wherein the metal salt is a hydrated metal salt.
Nakua teaches a jettable composition comprising a metal salt, wherein the metal salt may be a hydrated metal salt. (para. 45-47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method Keoshkerian in view of Lee to substitute one metal salt, such a copper nitrate taught by Keoshkerian (see rejection of claim 2 above) for a hydrated metal salt, such as a hydrated copper nitrate, as taught by Nakua. The substitution of one metal salt used for jetting and reducing to form a metal structure, for another having the same purpose and result, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keoshkerian (US 2019/0085195) in view of Xu (US 2019/0054536), as applied to claim 1 (with respect to claim 7), further in view of Anthony et al. (US 2019/0143453)(previously cited).
With respect to Claims 7-8, Keoshkerian teaches heating the build material, for example, by irradiating the build material with electromagnetic radiation (see para. 60, “Examples of heating techniques include thermal heating heating (for example, at hot plate, an oven, and a burner), infra-red (“IR”) radiation, laser beam, flash light, microwave radiation, or ultraviolet (“UV”) radiation, or a combination thereof.”); however, the reference is silent as to applying a heating agent over or adjacent to at least one of the layers of printed build material.
Anthony teaches a method of 3D printing, wherein a positive making agent may be selectively deposited in contact with a selected portion of a metallic build material, wherein the masking agent may comprise a radiation absorbing material in a liquid carrier, wherein the radiation absorbing material is used to improve melting/fusing of the metallic build material. (para. 8-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Keoshkerian in view of Lee, to selectively apply the heating agent over a portion of at least one of the layers of Lee, the heating agent comprising a radiation absorber and a liquid carrier, as taught by Anthony, in order to improve the efficiency/effectiveness of heat generation during the step of reducing the metal salt. Furthermore, as Keoshkerian teaches wherein the method comprises using electromagnetic irradiation to heat the metal salt to cause the metal salt to decompose and reduce to a metal (see above), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the step of reducing the metal salt in contact with or adjacent to the heating agent, by irradiating the heating agent with electromagnetic radiation (light) to cause the radiation absorber to generate heat for the reducing of the metal salt.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is 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 prior art of record fails to teach a method as in claim 1, wherein the method further comprises pre-heating the print platform to exactly 90 degrees C before inkjet printing the layer of the jettable build material composition thereon.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Specifically, prior art Nakua and Lee are silent as to a method comprising inkjet printing a layer of a jettable build material composition comprising a solution of a metal salt and a liquid carrier directly onto a print platform. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Keosherian in view of Xu, as detailed above.
Additionally, the nonstatutory double patenting rejections over U.S. Pat. No. 11167374 and 1175863 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to previously presented prior art Nakua and/or Anthony are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 JOHN A HEVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/JOHN A HEVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735