DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 and 18-20 are pending.
Claims 10-17 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 I claims 1-9 and 18-20 in the reply filed on 28 April 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 10-17 have been cancelled.
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) 1-6, 8-9 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golobic et al. (US 2018/0016680) in view of Manachino (“Modeling and characterization of electronic conductivity in 3D printed PEGDA:PEDOT polymer composites High frequency applications, Doctoral Dissertation, Politecnico di Torino, 2021).
Regarding claim 1, Golobi discloses a metal containing photopolymer resin generated (title) by additive manufacturing [0027] (= an additive manufacturing method for a composite structure), comprising:
Providing a photopolymer resin [0011] liquid [0039] including a metal salt [0011] and a photoinitiator [0033], [0048], [0091] (= preparing a photo curable electrolyte solution by mixing a photocurable liquid resin with a metal salt solution, a photo initiator);
Using a UV light source (102) [0033], [0048] to initialize polymerization [0053] (Figure 1B) (= initiating photopolymerization of the photocurable liquid resin to form a photocured polymer matrix by directing a projection of ultraviolet light energy from a light source onto the photocurable electrolyte solution);
Reducing metal ions within the three-dimensional structure to form the three dimensional metallized structure (Figure 3) (= depositing a metal structure onto the photocured polymer matrix).
Golobic differs from the instant claim in that the precursor solution of Golobic does not include a nanofiller and deionized water.
In the same or similar field of polymer composites for additive manufacturing methods (abstract) including stereolithography, Manachino discloses the use of PEDOT:PSS as a filler. Manachino discloses that PEDOT is made water-soluble when coupled with polystyrene sulfonic acid (page 16). Manachino discloses that PEDOT:PSS is one of the most widely used conducting polymers today for a wide range of applications because it has a wide range of conductivity, transparency, electrochromism, solution processability, flexibility, high work function, good chemical stability and biocompatibility (page 25). Manachino discloses that PEDOT:PSS is used as a filler agent in order to create a new preparation of the resin (PEGDA) for stereolithography 3D printing of conductive polymers (page 45, Resin filler). Manachino discloses that the electrical conductivity of PEDOT:PSS may be enhanced when organic solvents and water are used to suspend the compound (page 24).
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 method comprising a nanofiller such as PEDOT:PSS in a solution because Manachino discloses that the compound used as a filler increases electrical conductivity and has several other advantages listed above. Manachino discloses the use of water solvent as described above. Deionized water is recognized in the art as a conventional way in which to provide an aqueous solvent.
Regarding claim 2, Golobic discloses crosslinking [0040] and reducing the metal ions within the 3D structure [0029]. The filler of Manachino would also be expected to be enclosed during the process since it is included in the precursor solution. Moreover, the instant claim does not indicate what the metal salt and conductive nanofiller are enclosed within.
Regarding claim 3, turning on/off a light source (102) is an obvious engineering method step when performing an additive manufacturing process including starting/stopping the process. Golobic discloses a stage (114) that is configured to change positions within the reservoir (112) along at least a z-axis (Figure 1A) [0032]. First and second predetermined distances may be any distance selected. Golobic discloses removal of uncured polymer [0048], [0061]. Golobic discloses transporting the precursor material into a solid part upon exposure to a light source [0005], [0039]-[0041]. Regarding any order of process steps, selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP § 2144.04 IV C). Golobic in view of Manachino disclose all of the claimed steps and/or render all the claimed steps obvious as they are directed towards obvious engineering method steps of forming the 3D metal-polymer composite structure.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 8, switching off a light source is an obvious engineering method step to stop a given method. Manachino discloses using a power source and applying a voltage between an anode and a cathode to flow an ionic current through an electrolyte solution to migrate and deposit copper ions onto a 3D printed PEGDA:PEDOT sample (page 48, 2nd paragraph). Golobic also discloses a deposition method to include electroplating which intrinsically uses a power source and current/voltage application [0073]-[0075]. Golobic discloses plating on the surface of the 3D structure [0012].
Regarding claim 6, Golobic discloses wherein the stage (114) is positioned within the reservoir in such a manner that the lower portion of the stage (114) is submerged in the precursor to a predetermined depth corresponding to a thickness of a layer of the structure to be fabricated [0038]. Golobic discloses repositioning the stage for forming a subsequent layer on the multi-layer formed [0086].
Regarding claim 9, Golobic discloses producing a structure comprising between nanometer and micrometer scale features (abstract). A plurality of structures is merely a duplication of parts which has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Golobic in view of Manachino disclose the claimed metal structure as described above.
Regarding claim 18, Golobic in view of Manachino disclose the claimed invention as described above. Claim 18 appears to require comparing a reference value (material index) to the layer produced. Golobic discloses embodiments in which the feature size may be in a range determined based on the type of formation process employed to fabricate the structures [0036]. Manachino discloses computer control of forming the 3D structure using programming and automation (page 26, 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 19, Golobic discloses layer-wise fashion and one or more 2D masks employed to facilitate the selective exposure [0004] using a digital mask (104) [0033]-[0034], [0040]-[0041], [0057]. Manachino discloses using slicing as a process for splitting or cutting a 3D model into multiple horizontal levels and following the slicing operation, a new file format is produced (page 26, 1st paragraph). Manachino discloses computer control of forming the 3D structure using programming and automation (page 26, 1st paragraph; programming intrinsically uses memory and software).
Regarding claim 20, Golobic discloses movement of the stage in the z-axis which provides raising and lowering the stage [0038]. Golobic discloses forming a new layer on top of a previously formed layer [0004] and multiple sub layers (120a,n) [0035]. Golobic discloses the claimed raising and lowering therefore a new layer is necessarily formed under pressure.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golobic et al. (US 2018/0016680) in view of Manachino (“Modeling and characterization of electronic conductivity in 3D printed PEGDA:PEDOT polymer composites High frequency applications, Doctoral Dissertation, Politecnico di Torino, 2021) and in further view of Erickson et al. (US 2021/0178686).
Regarding claim 7, Manachino discloses performing polymerization at room temperatures (page 13, 3rd paragraph). Golobic in view of Manachino are silent in regards to the temperature of the initiating and depositing steps therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the art for workable temperatures and arrive at a reference such as Erickson.
Erickson discloses in the field of additive manufacturing that electroplating of copper for example may take place at room temperature [0074]. 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 method comprising performing steps such as initiating and electroplating at room temperature because it is known in the art according to Erickson that electroplating takes place at room temperature. Generally, differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such temperature is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al., “Lightweight Mechanical Metamaterials with Tunable Negative Thermal Expansion”, Physical Review Letter, 117, 175901, 2016.
Yee et al. “Additive Manufacturing of 3D-Architectected Multifunctional Metal Oxides”, Advanced Materials 2019, 31, 1901345.
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
Prosecution Insights