DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 10-20 are pending.
Claims 1-9 are cancelled.
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 without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 15 January 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1-9 have been cancelled by the amendment dated 15 January 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “wherein the at least one deposition channel are arranged” and “the at least one removal channel are arranged” may be more appropriately written with the verb “is” for is arranged. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 10-13 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oren et al. (WO 2022/049582) in view of Yu (US 2013/0142566).
Oren et al. (US 2023/0340683) is herein cited as the English equivalent.
Regarding claim 10, Oren discloses a 3D printing and additive manufacturing system for electrochemical deposition with at least one electrolyte (title, abstract, [0001]) (= an additive manufacturing system for depositing at least one material from a solution), comprising:
A printing head [0020], [0042] (= a material depositor), comprising:
A fluid channel carrying electrolyte for meniscus (7) confined deposition within the pipe or pipette (2) [0052], [0056] to a bottom plate (8) (Figure 2) and the concentration of the electrolyte are refreshed [0053], [0068] (= at least one deposition channel through which the material depositor is adapted to deposit the solution in a rich state to a target surface, wherein the solution in the rich state includes an initial concentration of the at least one material);
An electrode within the pipe or pipette ([0006], claim 34) which applies a voltage or current to deposit materials [0020] (= at least one electrode adapted to apply a first predefined electrical output through the solution);
Fluid flow towards the electrolyte reservoir [0053] (= at least one removal channel through which the material depositor is adapted to remove the solution in the depleted state);
The pipe or pipette coated with hydrophilic material to change the wetting angle [0063] (= a hydrophilic region including a hydrophilic surface);
The pipe or pipette coated with hydrophobic material which aids in keeping the meniscus confinement to a desired volume or area [0063] (= a hydrophobic barrier).
Regarding the claimed “to adhere the at least one material to the target surface and to yield the solution in a depleted state, wherein the solution in the depleted state contains a second concentration of the at least one material in the solution, the second concentration being different from the initial concentration”, Oren discloses an ingoing pipe which holds a fluid channel that goes into a confined box and is connected on its other side to an electrolyte reservoir and to a pump. Oren discloses that the pump can force fluid flow in either direction, towards the sealed box, in which there is typically a pipette for meniscus confined electrodeposition and towards the electrolyte reservoir in the opposite direction, potential to refresh the concentration of ions or other materials in the electrolyte in the pipette [0053]. Therefore Oren discloses that there is an initial ‘rich state’ solution with a first concentration and a second depleted solution with a second concentration that is refreshed.
Oren discloses a hydrophilic region and a hydrophobic region in various embodiments as described above. Oren fails to disclose the hydrophilic region including gaps and wherein the hydrophobic barrier substantially circumscribes the hydrophilic region.
In the same or similar field of three-dimensional electrochemical deposition (abstract, [0014]), Yu discloses wherein the system comprises a nozzle (12) for flowing an electrolyte and forming a meniscus (Figures 1-2) to deposit material. Yu discloses in an embodiment that the dispensing end of the reservoir may be hydrophilic on the inner surface with an outer surface being hydrophobic [0117].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the hydrophilic inner material with a hydrophobic outer material or barrier to control the volume and area of the meniscus as described by Oren [0063]. Selection of the arrangement of the hydrophilic and hydrophobic materials would have been obvious particularly in view of the disclosure of Oren which states that the hydrophilic and hydrophobic materials are used to control the wetting properties [0063]. Regarding the claimed gaps, the gaps appear to be the channels through which the deposition material flows. Oren discloses fluid channels and valves for supplying and removing the electrolyte [0053].
Regarding claim 11, Oren [0063] in view of Yu [0117] disclose wherein the hydrophobic barrier is adapted to maintain the solution within a projection of the hydrophilic region between the deposition and the removal (i.e. by controlling the volume and area of the meniscus).
Regarding claim 12, Oren discloses a pump [0006], [0025], [0046], [0054] and wherein pumps and valves are computerized to allow automatic control and prevent errors in electrolyte choosing (= a pressure application device to apply a predefined pressure to the solution to facilitate one or more of the deposition and the removal). Regarding “wherein the predefined pressure is based on one or more of…one removal channel”, the claim language is directed towards the manner of operating the claimed additive manufacturing system including the pressure application device. Since Oren discloses computer control of the pump, the device and system of Oren discloses the claimed pressure application device.
Regarding claim 13, Oren discloses wherein the device comprises multiple pipettes such that different materials may be introduced and deposited [0006], [0074].
Regarding claim 15, the application of different electrical outputs is directed towards the manner of operating the claimed system and does not further structurally limit the claimed system. Moreover, Oren discloses application of voltages [0020], [0040]. The power supply of Oren [0043] is capable of applying different outputs to deposit different materials.
Regarding claim 16, given the device of Oren that provides different materials deposited and flowing through different pipettes, the device of Oren necessarily includes multiple reservoirs [0074]. Oren discloses controlled use of multiple materials and pipettes [0074].
Regarding claims 17-18, Oren discloses the application of voltage to the system which includes the electrolyte. The electrolyte is present throughout the channels and therefore reads on the claimed applies the first predefined electrical output through one or more of the at least one deposition channel and the at least one removal channel as applied to claim 17 and between the at least one deposition channel and the at least one removal channel as applied to claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, Oren discloses the use of optical sensors such as CCD [0006]. Oren discloses the use of sensors to determine deposition rate, deposition height, thickness, etc. [0006], [0022]-[0023].
Regarding claim 20, Oren discloses the device as a three-dimensional printing device including a print head that houses the pipette [0020]. Oren discloses an electrolyte reservoir that receives the removed fluid through a channel [0053].
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oren et al. (WO 2022/049582), in view of Yu (US 2013/0142566) and in further view of Ravkin et al. (US 7,632,376).
Regarding claim 14, Oren in view of Yu fails to disclose wherein the at least one deposition channel are arranged in a first row within the hydrophilic region and the at least one removal channel are arranged in a second row within the hydrophilic region, wherein the at least one deposition channel in the first row is geometrically staggered relative to the at least one removal channel in the second row along a longitudinal length of the first row. Oren in view of Yu discloses the hydrophilic region as described above. The combination does not disclose the staggered arrangement in rows.
In the same or similar field of electroplating devices (Col. 4 lines 6-8, Col. 7 lines 15-17), Ravkin discloses a proximity head (106) that comprises a plurality of inlets (302) and outlets (304) arranged in rows and the inlets/outlets are optionally staggered (Figures 4a-c). The device of Ravkin is provided for processing a substrate with a first process window configured to apply a first fluid meniscus between the first process window and a surface of the substrate (abstract). Ravkin discloses forming the same or different conduit pattern depending on the operation to be conducted by the proximity head (Figure 8, Col. 18 lines 7-25). Ravkin discloses altering the arrangement to produce a stable and controllable fluid meniscus (Col. 13 lines 38-50).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a system comprising a staggered arrangement in rows of channels because Ravkin discloses that a proximity head may have various arrangements of inlets/outlets to control the meniscus depending on the operation to be conducted.
PNG
media_image1.png
780
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
674
486
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figures 4 and 8 of US 7,632,376.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2018/0178461 3D printing
WO 2020/075173 meniscus confined 3D electrodeposition
CN 111041529 print head for 3D electrodeposition
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFANIE S WITTENBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-7594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 am -4:00 pm EST.
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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/Stefanie S Wittenberg/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795