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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 4/18/24 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 3, 10-15, 18-22, and 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vella et al. (US 20170207001 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 10-11, Vella teaches “a conductive polymer composite” (which reads upon “a material for additive manufacturing comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0010]). Vella teaches that “FIG. 2A shows an SEM image of multiwalled carbon nanotubes (“MWCNTs”) decorated with silver particles” (which reads upon “nanoparticles deposited on nanostructures, wherein the nanostructures are selected from the group consisting of single- walled carbon nanotubes, multi-walled carbon nanotubes, fullerenes, carbon nano-onions, graphene, graphene oxide, carbon nanohorns, boron nitride nanotubes and mixtures thereof”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0017] and FIG. 2A). Vella teaches “a plurality of optional conductive particles that are not metal-plated carbon nanotubes” (paragraph [0034]). Vella teaches that “the optional conductive particles can have any desired form, such as, for example, at least one particle selected from the group consisting of metallic wires, metallic flakes, and metallic nanoparticles” (which reads upon “nanoparticles, additive particles bound to the nanoparticles to form a three-dimensional network of the material”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0034]). Vella teaches that “the optional particles can comprise any suitable conductive material, such as, for example, metals, such as gold, silver, aluminum and copper, as well as graphene, graphite, and carbon nanotubes and carbon nanofibers that are not metal plated” (which reads upon “wherein the nanoparticles comprise a transition metal selected from the group consisting of Fe, Co, Cr, Mo, Cu, Ni and mixtures thereof, a metal selected from the group consisting of Ti, AI, V, precious metals, refractory metals and a mixture thereof, or a semiconductor selected from Si, Si oxides and mixture thereof”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0034]). Vella teaches that “example amounts of carbon nanotubes include a range of from 1% to about 50% by weight, such as about 2% to about 20% by weight, or about 5% to about 15%, or about 10% by weight” (paragraph [0033]). Vella teaches that “the optional conductive particles can be in any suitable amount, such as an amount ranging from about 1% to about 50% by weight, such as about 5% to about 50% by weight, or about 1% to about 30% by weight, or about 5% to about 30% by weight, or about 10% to about 30% by weight, or about 20% to about 30% by weight” (which reads upon “wherein the ratio of nanoparticles to nanostructures, in weight, is from about 1:1 to about 5000:1”, as recited in the instant claim; which reads upon claims 10-11; paragraph [0034]; nanoparticles may be 30% by weight, nanostructures may be 1% by weight, thus the ratio may be about 30:1).
Regarding claims 12-14, Vella teaches the material of claim 3 as stated above. Vella teaches that “in an embodiment, the composite is a conductive paste” (paragraph [0036]; material is a conductive paste, as opposed to a conductive polymer). Vella teaches that “the paste comprises at least one carrier liquid” (paragraph [0036]). Vella teaches that “the carrier liquid can be included in the paste in any suitable amount, such as, for example, about 0.5% to about 60% weight percent based on the total weight of the wet composite paste” (paragraph [0036]; carrier may be as little as 0.5% by weight, leaving 99.5% for additive particles). Vella teaches that “example amounts of carbon nanotubes include a range of from 1% to about 50% by weight” (paragraph [0033]). Vella teaches that “the optional conductive particles can be in any suitable amount, such as an amount ranging from about 1% to about 50% by weight” (paragraph [0034]; nanoparticles may be up to 50% by weight, nanostructures may be up to 50% by weight).
Regarding claim 15, Vella teaches the material of claim 3 as stated above. Vella teaches that “while any coating methods may be used, it is theorized that directly plating the metals onto the carbon nanotubes may provide improved conductivity over some other coating methods” (paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 18, Vella teaches the material of claim 3 as stated above. Vella teaches that “the optional particles can comprise any suitable conductive material, such as, for example, metals, such as gold, silver, aluminum and copper, as well as graphene, graphite, and carbon nanotubes and carbon nanofibers that are not metal plated, and that examples of such particles include gold, silver, aluminum or copper nanowires, gold, silver, aluminum or copper nanoparticles and gold, silver, aluminum or copper flakes” (paragraph [0034]; nanowires reads on nanoparticles in the form of cylinders).
Regarding claims 19 and 21-22, Vella teaches the material of claim 3 as stated above. Vella teaches that “various examples of suitable electroless deposition techniques are known in the art” (paragraph [0031]). Vella teaches that “one known technique for electroless deposition of silver onto multiwalled carbon nanotubes involves the following steps: (i) oxidation of the CNTs (e.g., using air-plasma oxidation or reflux in concentrated acid bath); (ii) sensitization of the surface (e.g., adsorption of a Sn2+) (also called pre-activation); (iii) an optional acceleration step (e.g., using HCl to etch the CI ion shell from the Sn2+ core); activation/reduction of Ag or Pd to replace the Sn2+ ions (sometimes done in the same step as the sensitization); and electroless deposition of metal (e.g., autocatalytic reduction of Ag)” (paragraph [0031]). Vella teaches that “other suitable electroless deposition methods can also be employed.” (paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 20, Vella teaches the material of claim 3 as stated above. Vella teaches that “examples of suitable carbon nanotubes include single walled carbon nanotubes, multiwalled carbon nanotubes and mixtures thereof” (paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claims 24-29, Vella teaches the material of claim 3 as stated above. Vella teaches that “the liquifier 106 can employ any technique for heating the filament, such as heating elements, lasers and so forth” (paragraph [0049]). Claim 3 is a product claim. Limitations regarding subjecting the claimed product to an energy flow are considered intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Here, no structural difference is required in order for the material to be subjected to the recited energy flow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vella et al. (US 20170207001 A1), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Stasiak et al. (US 20220040764 A1).
Regarding claims 16-17, Vella teaches the material of claim 3 as stated above. Vella teaches that “the optional conductive particles can have any desired form, such as, for example, at least one particle selected from the group consisting of metallic wires, metallic flakes, and metallic nanoparticles” (paragraph [0034]). Vella teaches that “the optional particles can comprise any suitable conductive material, such as, for example, metals, such as gold, silver, aluminum and copper, as well as graphene, graphite, and carbon nanotubes and carbon nanofibers that are not metal plated” (paragraph [0034]).
Vella is silent regarding the size of the metallic nanoparticles.
Stasiak is similarly concerned with materials used in additive manufacturing (title, claim 15). Stasiak teaches that “the hardening agent, the binder fluid, and the metal-based build material may be part of a three-dimensional printing kit” (paragraph [0010]). Stasiak teaches that “examples of suitable hardening elements include carbon, molybdenum, tungsten, copper, boron, gold, chromium, or combinations thereof” (paragraph [0014]). Stasiak teaches that “copper and gold may be in the form of nanoparticles” (paragraph [0014]; corresponds to the copper or gold metallic nanoparticles of Vella). Stasiak teaches that “any of the hardening elements that are included as nanoparticles may have a particle size (e.g., mean diameter, which may be calculated using a number distribution, volume distribution, etc.) ranging from about 2 nm to about 100 nm” (which reads upon “wherein the nanoparticles have an average diameter of about 0.5nm to about 100nm”, as recited in instant claim 15; paragraph [0015]). Stasiak teaches that “in another example, the hardening element nanoparticles may have a particle size ranging from about 10 nm to about 50 nm” (which reads upon “wherein the nanoparticles have an average diameter of about 1 nm to about 50nm”, as recited in instant claim 16; paragraph [0015]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use copper or gold metallic nanoparticles of Vella with a size of about 2 nm to about 100 nm, or about 10 nm to about 50 nm, as taught by Stasiak because Vella is silent as to the size of the copper or gold metallic nanoparticles and Stasiak teaches that the claimed sizes are suitably useful for copper or gold metallic nanoparticles used in additive manufacturing applications.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q2: 3/30-4/3/26; Q3: 6/22-6/26/26; Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. 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.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733