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 .
This Non-Final Rejection is in response to the Applicant’s claim amendment received on 03/10/2026, in response to the request for continued examination received on 3/10/2026.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-22) in the reply filed on 8/12/2025 is acknowledged.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-18, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granek et al. (US 11, 673, 406 B2) in view of Yu et al. (US 2011/0073243 A1).
Regarding claims 1 – 7, 9, and 22, Granek et al. teach a method of additive manufacturing, the method (see Figs. 1-22; col 1. lines 35 col 18 lines 50), comprising:
disposing a nozzle of a print head of an additive manufacturing system over a first location on a substrate (Figs. 1-22, item 110-substrate and print head 104, 108-positioning system for print head, see col 4 lines 20-35) used for dispensing an ink composition from the nozzle onto the first location of the substrate (col 1 line 35 to col 2 lines 40), thereby forming a first portion of a structure on the first location (see col 5 lines 1 to col 9 lines 65).
Granek et al. teach print head at step 192, a print head positioning system (108) is provided. The print head positioning system (108) controls the vertical displacement of the print head (104) and the lateral displacement of the print head (104) relative to the substrate. At step 194, the print head positioning system (108) is operated to control a vertical distance between the end face (170) and the printable surface (112) to within a range of 0 μm to 5 μm during the printing (see Fig. 8; see col 6 lines 50 to col 7 lines 20).
Furthermore, Granek et al. additionally teach at step 196, the print head positioning system (108) is operated to laterally displace the print head (104) relative to the substrate during the printing. The lateral displacement of the print head (104) relative to the substrate means one of the following options: (1) the substrate is stationary and the print head (104) is moved laterally; (2) the print head (104) is not moved laterally and the substrate is moved laterally; and (3) both the print head (104) and the substrate are moved laterally. In option (1), the print head (104) is moved laterally and vertically. In option (2), the print head (104) is moved vertically but is not moved laterally, and the substrate stage, to which the substrate is fixed in position, is moved laterally. Additionally, in option (2), the print head positioning system (108) comprises a vertical positioner coupled to the print head (104) and a lateral positioner coupled to the substrate stage. At step (198), the pneumatic system (106) is operated, to apply pressure to the fluid in the micro-structural fluid ejector (200) via the elongate input portion (128) (see Fig. 8; col 6 lines 50 to col 7 lines 20).
Granek et al. fail to teach the specific movement claims including moving the nozzle away from the substrate while intentionally not depositing the ink composition to increase the first distance, thereby elongating the structure and increasing the second distance and an aspect ratio of the structure… as claimed. It is noted that this technique appears to be pull back technique used for elongating deposited material.
In the same field of endeavor, Yu et al. teach direct-write techniques for the high speed and continuous fabrication of elongated nanostructures such as nanofibers, including freestanding nanofibers, suspended or stacked nanofiber arrays, and even a continuously-wound nanofiber roll (see abstract; see Figs. 1 – 7, specifically Fig. 4); the step including bringing the dispensing end of the reservoir in proximity to a substrate, thereby establishing a first meniscus volume of solution to external to the reservoir between the dispensing end of the reservoir and a selected location on the substrate; controlling vapor pressure of solvent in the atmosphere, initiating growth of the nanofiber, increasing separation between the reservoir and the selected location on the substrate while maintaining the second meniscus between the dispensing end of the reservoir and the previously precipitated material, thereby maintain a second meniscus; thereby continuing growth of the nanofiber (see [0015]-[0019]).
Yu et al. further teach that vertical separation between the reservoir and the selected location on the substrate is increased, so that the nanofiber extends at least partially upwards from the surface of the substrate (see [0020]). Yu et al. also teach nanofibers formed from rapid evaporation of liquid dispersion of colloidal particles, resulting aggregation and deposition of the particles (see [0028]-[0035]) which includes elongating by increasing the distance. Yu et al. further discloses controlling the nano-structures including elongating nanostructures with specific aspect ratios (see [0059]), aspect ratio less than 5 (see [0059]-[0061]). In another embodiment, the elongated structures may be parallel to the substrate surface after formation, such structure may be formed by drawing the fiber at a shallow angle with respect to the substrate including pullback speed, and where reservoir moved laterally (see [0063], Figs. 2a-3c; [0083]-0086] [0094]-[0102] discloses control of relative motion of reservoir and substrate during formation of nanofibers).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention to have modified Granek et al. with using pull back technique for elongating fiber, as suggested by Yu et al., for the benefit of producing an elongated structure with desired aspect ratio (see [0083]-[0102], [0003]), thereby having desired strength in the product made ([0108]).
Claims 11- 10, pertaining to forming a pillar, trace, or combination are within the scope of Granek et al. as it teaches similar to applicant’s instant specification formation of micro-fluid on a substrate of any suitable material such as glass, plastic, metal or silicon (see col 4 lines 30-50), and prints lines in an area where there is an open defect in the existing circuit (see col 4 lines 30-40). Claim limitation pertaining to wherein the structure rebounds elastically after forming the gap merely provides any positive elements in the claim as it does not identify whether it is due to material property (type of fluid dispensed), and such is obvious over Granek et al. and Yu et al. as provided above.
Additionally, Granek et al. teach wherein an angle of a longitudinal axis of the nozzle relative to a plane of the substrate is in a range of 90 degrees to 40 degrees (see Fig. 8); and optimizing the distance between nozzle and substrate to perform the desired process (see col 6 lines 30 to col 7 lines 60), therefore claim limitation pertaining to having a second distance in a range of 1 to 50 micron would have been obvious modification. Granek et al. teach optimizing or forming patterns with desired line widths (see col 7 lines 40-55, col 1 lines 15-20), thus having a width of structure in the range of 1 micron to about 10 micron would have been obvious. Additionally, Yu et al. as provided above also teach the structure includes pillar, a trace or a combination of (see Figs 1-7; see [0015]-[0045]; see Fig. 4 specifically), and wherein an angle of the longitudinal axis of the nozzle relative to a plane of the substrate being shallow (see [0063]), the nanofiber made where diameter is determined with the size of the meniscus and length is determined via the pull back travel distance of the pipette (see [0107]); and wherein the width of the structure is in a range of 1 micron to 10 micron ([0059], [0060], [0086]).
As for claim 15, Yu et al. further teach wherein the increase in the first distance by moving the nozzle away from the structure while not depositing the ink composition is based on at least one parameter selected from the group consisting of a wettability of the substrate, a viscosity of the ink composition, a surface tension of the ink composition, and a contact angle between the ink composition and the substrate (see [0021]-[0102], [0084], 0089], [0108]).
Regarding claim 8,16, and 17, Granek et al. teach all the limitations to the claim invention as discussed above, however, fail to teach wherein the structure comprises an aspect ratio of at least 1; further comprising curing the ink composition; wherein curing the ink composition comprising applying at least one stimulus selected from the group consisting of ultraviolet radiation and heat.
In the same field of endeavor, Yu et al. further teach wherein the structure comprises an aspect ratio of at least 1 (see [0059]) ; further comprising curing the ink composition; wherein curing the ink composition comprising applying at least one stimulus selected from the group consisting of ultraviolet radiation and heat ([0097], [0067], [0068]).
As for claims 18 and 20, Granek et al. and Yu et al. further teach wherein the nozzle comprises a capillary tube having inner diameter at the top of 0. 5 micron (see Ganek col 4 lines 40-50; Yu et al. [0086]-[0087]) and the output having diameter 0. 8 to 2 micron (see table 1 of Ganek; [0085]-[0089] of Yu et al), thus optimizing the outer diameter of the capillary tube would have been obvious. Furthermore, Granek et al. teach wherein dispensing an ink composition from the nozzle onto the first location comprises applying a pressure in a range of 100 mbar to 10000 mbar to the ink composition in the nozzle to extrude the ink composition through the nozzle and onto the first location on the substrate (see Ganek col 14 lines 35-55; see Yu et al. claims for controlling pressure in the surrounding the reservoir and the substrate).
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granek et al. (US 11, 673, 406 B2) in view of Yu et al. (US 2011/0073243 A1) and in further view of McAlpine et al. (US 2020/0001540 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Granek et al. and Yu et al. teach all the limitation to the claim invention as including height adjustable print-head/jet as discussed above, however, fail to explicitly teach further comprising applying a vacuum with the nozzle while moving the nozzle away from the substrate to increase the first distance therebetween.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to 3D printing, McAlpine et al. teach at least one dispense (22) may include one or more of an extrusion nozzle, a jet nozzle, an aerosol nozzle, an inkjet nozzle, a vacuum nozzle or any suitable nozzle (see [0081], [0005]-[0173]; Figs. 1-28) for the benefit of efficiently and fast formation of a 3D printed part with reduced cost.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention to have modified Granek et al. and Yu et al., with further including a vacuum nozzle, as taught by McAlpine et. For the benefit of for the benefit of efficiently and fast formation of a 3D printed part with reduced cost.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is 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. Granek et al. (US 11, 673, 406 B2) in view of Nagai et al. (US 2009/0014916 A1) in further view of Schädel et al. (US 2021/0340391 A1) and in further view of McAlpine et al. (US 2020/0001540 A1) fails to teach wherein the ink composition comprises a viscosity in a range of 100,000 cP to 10,000,000 cP as measured at 25 degrees Celsius with a rheometer with a 25 mm parallel plate spindle and a shear rate in a range of 0.1 s-1 to 100 s-1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Furthermore, the examiner notes that claim 1 is nothing but creating an elongated structure via pull-back method, and such is shown obvious over Yu et al. and any additional limitation pertaining to specific manner deposited is obvious over Ganek et al. in view of Yu et al. for forming elongated structures.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 8,304,089 B1; US 5,352,512; US 5,616,675.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -5:00 PM).
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743