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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Claims 1-8 and corresponding new claim 19, in the reply filed on 2/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the groups do not lack unity of invention in view of Briselden (US 2010/0279007A1) pointing out alleged deficiencies of the reference in view of the claim limitations. These arguments are not found persuasive because Applicant’s arguments are based on new amendments to the claims and not the originally filed claims on which the restriction requirement was based. The prior art of record, including Nauka (WO 2019/156674)(as detailed below) make clear that the shared technical feature of the claims, as amended, do not represent a special technical feature and therefore, lack unity of invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/12/2026
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) 1-2, 5, 7-8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nauka et al. (WO 2019/156674).
With respect to Claims 1-2, 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).
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 5, Nauka teaches wherein the reaction inhibition additive may be present in the binding agent in an amount of 2-40 wt%, overlapping the instantly claimed range. (para. 7, 21). 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 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) 3-4 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 Ida (US 2017/0252801).
With respect to Claim 3, Nauka teaches a binding agent comprising water, copper nitrate, and an additive such as formic acid (reaction inhibition additive)(see rejection of claims 1-2 above), but is silent as to the addition of a water-soluble phosphate-containing compound as required by claims 3 and 4.
Ida teaches copper particles and a method of making said copper particles, wherein the method comprises combining a copper-forming compound, such as copper oxide or copper nitrate, with a reducing agent and/or complexing agent to reduce the copper-forming compound to metallic copper, wherein the complexing and/or reducing agent may comprises one or more of formic acid, acetic acid, oxalic acid, phosphoric acid, and phosphoric acid compounds. (para. 11-12, 108, 118, 122). Thus, Ida teaches the substitutability and combinability of reducing/complexing agents such as formic acid, acetic acid, oxalic acid, phosphoric acid.
Thus, Nauka and Ida are both drawn to compositions comprising a copper compound such as copper nitrate and an agent for reducing the copper compound to metallic copper. 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 (acting as a reducing agent for the copper nitrate) a content of phosphoric acid or a phosphoric acid compound, as taught by Ida, 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.
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”).
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 teache 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO2019156675A1, having a similar disclosure to that of Nauka (WO 2019/156674).
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