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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/18/25 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-17, 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4/21/25.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0375684 to Wolf in view of US 10287446 to Haghzadeh.
Wolf teaches a method for in-situ measurement and feedback control of additively manufactured electronic components (abstract). The process includes a sensor connected to the circuit for monitoring a measured electric property [0010]. In response to the measured value, a variety of controls are simultaneous exerted on the formation of the electronic component such as adjusting the material deposition rate [0010; 0012], depositing an additional bead of material (Fig. 2), and stopping deposition (Id.). This adjusts the physical characteristic of the conductive trace in at least three ways: 1) the depositing an additional bead of material adjusts a physical characteristic of the conductive trace, 2) the shape of the deposited material is controlled in response to the measurement [0046], and 3) adjusting the deposition rate alters the cross-section of the deposited material [0060]. Once a threshold is reached, deposition is stopped and printing has ended (Fig. 2). The beads of material are conductors for an RF antenna [0046].
Wolf does not teach measurement by a vector network analyzer. However, Haghzadeh teaches a vector network analyzer for measuring reflection (11:1-3) in the context of forming an antenna (varactor as part of an antenna 12:23-27) to tune the resulting frequency (1:30-39). A reflection coefficient less than -16 dB at a frequency of interest would have been obvious as the selection of an acceptable value for the purpose of creating a functional antenna. Haghzadeh teaches the desirability for impedance matching (13:42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Wolf and use a VNA as the sensor for monitoring reflection coefficient during creation of the antenna. Wolf teaches monitoring various properties during creation of an antenna and Haghzadeh teaches reflection coefficient is a property of interest in the formation of an antenna.
Claim(s) 5-12, 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0375684 to Wolf in view of US 10287446 to Haghzadeh in view of US 2022/0220331 to Ranasingha.
Wolf is discussed above but does not teach a convertible ink. However, Ranasingha teaches a method for fabricating electronic components using a convertible ink (abstract). The convertible ink is a mixture of silver nanoparticles and BST nanoparticles [0012] that forms an insulator under normal drying conditions and form a conductor after sintering (Fig. 3, Ink 3). This enables coating, followed by SLS, to form patterned electronics that are dielectric with conductive patterns [0051-0052]. The process includes the ability to form different linewidths (Fig. 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Wolf and form the electronic component using the combination of a convertible ink and SLS because Ranasingha teaches that it is a suitable method for forming the conductive and insulating portions of an electronic component.
Claims 23-25:
Measuring continuously would have been obvious to provide the most complete monitoring. Combining material addition and monitoring the electrical characteristic in order to correct impedance mismatch is the combination of the concepts discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are considered to be arguments against the references individually where the rejection is based on the combination, and specifically what the combination would have rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. With respect to amended claim 1, Wolf does teach simultaneous measuring and forming in the context of adjusting an RF antenna to meet a predetermined threshold criterion and Haghzadeh does teach reflection coefficient measured impedance matching as a criterion for forming an antenna. Taken together, it would have been obvious to use reflection coefficient measured impedance matching as the criterion for simultaneous measuring and forming in the context of adjusting an RF antenna. This analysis is substantially similar with respect to new claim 25 except the adjustment is performed by SLS in the manner described by Ranasingha. It is noted that the process of Wolf does include electrical contacts 124 that are connected to sensor 128 and operate in a manner that requires continuous measurement [0044]. This establishes that continuous measurement would have been useful and obvious for the purpose of controlling the adjustment, including when the adjustment involves forming conductive traces by SLS.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759