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 6/25/2026, is acknowledged. Claims 1, 4-6, 9, 11-12, and 18 are amended; Claims 2-3, 10, 13, and 16-17 are canceled; Claims 20-22 are newly added. Claims 1, 4-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 18-22 are currently pending, claims 9, 11-12, 14-15, and 18 are withdrawn.
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, 7-8 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nauka et al. (WO 2019/156674)(previously cited).
With respect to Claims 1 and 20, Nauka teaches a three-dimensional printing system/kit, the kit including a powder bed material comprising up to 100% metal particles, for example, copper or copper alloy particles, and separately a binder fluid (binding agent) comprising an aqueous vehicle, for example, 20-95 wt% water, a reducible metal compound, and a thermally sensitive agent. (para. 11, 15-17). Nauka teaches wherein the reducible metal compound may comprise copper nitrate (para. 17) and the thermally sensitive agent may comprise, for example, formic acid and thus, constitutes a “a reaction inhibition additive, that is a copper oxide etchant” as in claims 1 and 2. (para. 18).
Specifically, Nauka teaches wherein the thermally sensitive agent (reaction inhibition additive) is present in an amount of 2-40 wt%, and may comprise a mixture of formic acid and additional agents (e.g. “hydrogen, lithium aluminum hydride, sodium borohydride, a borane, sodium hydrosulfite, hydrazine, a hindered amine, 2-pyrrolidone, ascorbic acid, a reducing sugar, diisobutylaluminium hydride, formic acid, formaldehyde, or mixtures thereof”). (para. 7, 18). Thus, each of the disclosed thermally sensitive agents may be present in an amount of 0-40 wt%, respectively, such that the combined total of all the agents is 2-40 wt%. Accordingly, Nakua is interpreted to teach a content of formic acid of 0-40 wt%, 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 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.
Nauka, therefore, teaches a three-dimensional printing kit comprising a build material comprising particles of copper or copper alloy, a binding agent contained separately from the build material, the binding agent comprising, water, copper nitrate (i.e. copper (II) nitrate), and an additive such as formic acid constituting “a reaction inhibition additive that is a copper oxide etchant” meeting claims 1 and 2. While the reference does not teach a single specific example comprising each of the above described components (and thus may not be considered to disclose a kit with sufficient specificity for the purposes of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the disclosed species of Nauka, to form a three-dimensional printing kit for forming a copper-based article via three-dimensional printing with a predictable result of success.
With respect to Claim 7, Nauka teaches the optional inclusion of a surfactant. (para. 7, 41, 43). The reference does not provide specific content range of surfactant additive, however, as the reference teaches a binding agent comprising 20-95 wt% water and 2-40 wt% each of copper nitrate and a reaction inhibition additive, the remaining portion of the composition that may comprise surfactant is deemed to overlap 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 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 8, the claim is interpreted as reciting the optional inclusion of an organic humectant in an amount of 0.1-10 wt%. Nauka does not require any content of an organic humectant, and thus, meets the claim. “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
With respect to claim 19, Nauka teaches wherein the build material may consist of copper or copper alloy particles. (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nauka et al. (WO 2019/156674), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Nuida et al. (US 2020/0001371).
With respect to Claim 5, Nauka teaches a binding agent comprising water, copper nitrate, and an additive such as formic acid (constituting the reaction inhibition additive)(see rejection of claim 1 above), but is silent as to the addition of a water-soluble phosphate-containing compound as required by claims 3 and 4.
Nuida teaches forming a solution comprising copper particles and one or more an acid, for example, formic acid, acetic acid, and/or propionic acid. (para. 14, 23-25). Thus, Nuida teaches the substitutability and combinability of acid agents such as formic acid, acetic acid, and propionic acid.
Thus, Nauka and Nuida are both drawn to compositions comprising mixing copper with an acid, including overlapping composition(s). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the three-dimensional printing kit of Nauka, to add to or substitute the formic acid a content of propionic acid, as taught by Nuida, in order to form a composition capable of the intended use of forming metallic copper from the copper compound present in the binding agent. In other words, it would have been obvious to substitute one agent for another, or a part of one agent for another (thus, comprising both agents), wherein both agents are known to be useful for the same purpose, with a predictable result of success.
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.
Claim(s) 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nauka et al. (WO 2019/156674), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Nauka (WO 2019/088965, cited on IDS)(hereafter, “Nauka ’965”)(previously cited).
With respect to Claim 6, Nauka teaches wherein a binding agent comprises a copper compound, such as copper nitrate, but is silent as to where the copper compound is copper (II) nitrate trihydrate.
Nauka ’965 teaches a three-dimensional printing kit comprising a metallic build material, such as copper or a copper alloy, and a patterning fluid (i.e. binding agent) comprising water, a metal salt, and optionally, additives such as a surfactant and/or humectant. (para. 30-32, 47-55, 57-58, 60-61). In particular, Nauka ’965 teaches wherein the metal salt be copper (II) nitrate or a hydrated metal salt, such as copper (II) nitrate trihydrate. (para. 47-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the three-dimensional printing kit of Nauka, to substitute the copper (II) nitrate for copper (II) nitrate trihydrate, as taught by Nauka ’965, in order to form a composition capable useful for three-dimensionally printing a copper-based part. In other words, it would have been obvious to substitute one copper compound for another, wherein both copper compounds are known to be useful for the same purpose, with a predictable result of success.
Finally, Nauka teaches wherein the copper compound is present in an amount of 2-40 wt% with respect to the total weight of the binding agent, overlapping the 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 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 7, Nauka teaches the optional addition of a surfactant deemed to overlap the claimed range. (see rejection above). In the alternative, Nauka ’965 teaches the optional addition of a surfactant to the binding agent/patterning fluid, in an amount of 0.01-10 wt% based on the total weight of the binding agent. (para. 60-61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the three-dimensional printing kit of Nauka to include a surfactant in an amount of 0.01-10 wt% based on the total weight of the binding agent, as taught by Nauka ’965, in order to enhance the jettability/flowability of the binding agent on to the copper-based build material when used in a three-dimensional printing process. (see Nauka ’965, para. 60). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claim 8, Nauka does not teach the addition of a humectant. In the alternative to the above rejection, Nauka ’965 teaches the optional addition of a humectant to the pattering fluid/binding agent, in an amount of 1-50 wt% based on the total weight of the binding agent. (para. 57-58). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the three-dimensional printing kit of Nauka to optionally include a humectant in an amount of 1-50 wt% based on the total weight of the binding agent, as taught by Nauka ’965, as a co-solvent to improve the properties of the fluid binding agent. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim(s) 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nauka et al. (WO 2019/156674), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Chen (TW 2016/27253A)(machine translation provided).
With respect to Claim 5, Nauka teaches a binding agent comprising water, copper nitrate, and an additive such as formic acid (constituting the reaction inhibition additive)(see rejection of claim 1 above), but is silent as to the additive is ammonium dihydrogen phosphate.
Chen teaches a material for three-dimensional printing material, wherein the material comprises a metal salt of, for example, aluminum, or calcium, and ammonium dihydrogen phosphate, wherein the ammonium dihydrogen phosphate is liquified upon heating releasing phosphoric acid and ammonia and reacting with the metal salt and binding the composition. (pgs. 1-3 of translation).
Thus, Nauka and Chen are both drawn to compositions for three-dimensional printing comprising a metal salt compound an agent to react/reduce the salt to bind the composition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the three-dimensional printing kit of Nauka, to add to or substitute the formic acid with a content of ammonium dihydrogen phosphate, as taught by Chen, in order to form a composition capable of the intended use of forming metallic copper from the copper compound present in the binding agent. In other words, it would have been obvious to substitute one binding agent for another, or a part of one agent for another (thus, comprising both agents), wherein both agents are known to be useful for the same purpose, with a predictable result of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 21 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 prior art fails to teach a three-dimensional printing kit of claim 1, further comprising a second fluid agent comprising water and one of the recited water-soluble phosphate containing compounds as in claim 4, or wherein the binding agent consists of water, the hydrate of the copper (ii) nitrate, and the reaction inhibition additive as in claim 21.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that prior art Nakua fails to teach a reaction inhibition additive meeting the amended claim 1 limitation “i)”, or “ii)” or “iii).” In particular, Applicant argues that the Nakua teaches an additive falling within iii) but having a content outside the claimed range. These arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
Claim 1 recites a reaction inhibition additive with i), ii) and iii) in the alternative, and therefore, the additives of i) and ii) are not required by the claim. Nakua teaches a reaction inhibition additive meeting iii) and therefore, meets the instant limitation. Specifically, Nauka teaches wherein the thermally sensitive agent (reaction inhibition additive) is present in an amount of 2-40 wt%, and may comprise a mixture of formic acid and additional agents (e.g. “hydrogen, lithium aluminum hydride, sodium borohydride, a borane, sodium hydrosulfite, hydrazine, a hindered amine, 2-pyrrolidone, ascorbic acid, a reducing sugar, diisobutylaluminium hydride, formic acid, formaldehyde, or mixtures thereof”). (para. 7, 18). Thus, each of the disclosed thermally sensitive agents may be present in an amount of 0-40 wt%, respectively, such that the combined total of all the agents is 2-40 wt%. Accordingly, Nakua is interpreted to teach a content of formic acid of 0-40 wt%, 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 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.
Applicant’s arguments as they apply to claim 4 and new claim 21 are found persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 5 is found persuasive in view of the amendment ot claim, now requiring a reaction inhibition additive i) or ii), however, after further search and consideration, a new ground of rejection over Nakua in view of Nuida is made as detailed above. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 5 are 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
Prosecution Insights