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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-18 and Species A, micro molding process in the reply filed on Aug. 8, 2026, is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted that the applicant has listed a large number of documents for consideration in the information disclosure statements submitted in this application. As noted in MPEP 2001.05, if information is not material, there is no duty to disclose the information to the Office. Information is not material unless it comes within the definition of 37 CFR 1.56(b)(1) or (2). As noted in MPEP 2004 (Section 13), it is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. It is suggested that applicants eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant' s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. Consideration by the examiner of the information submitted in an IDS means that the examiner has considered the documents in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search,609.05(b). Foreign language documents have been considered for relevance in light of information provided by applicant under guidelines in MPEP 609.04(a)(III).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0058], “variuos” should read “various”. 35 U.S.C 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because it is unclear as to what reference character “17” is pointing to in Fig. 2C. Based on the specification, it should be pointing to sintered areas. However, there is no indication where the sintered areas are in relation to reference number “11”. Additionally, it appears that “17” is pointing to the same feature as “11”.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
655, 665, 675
730, 735, 740, 750, 770
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “550” has been used to designate both a laser and a separate light source.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation that the heat is between 100 and 1000OC. However, heat values are not reported in units of OC. Therefore, it is unclear if the applicant is reciting a heat limitation or a temperature limitation. For the purpose of examination, claim 7 is interpreted as limiting the heating temperature to 100-1000OC.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1, 3, 5, 7-9, 11-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cullinan (US 2018/0065186 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cullinan teaches a micro selective laser sintering apparatus and method. Their method comprises the following steps (Fig. 21, [0035]):
Coating a uniform layer of nanoparticle ink onto the surface of a substrate.
Selectively sintering the uniform layer of nanoparticle ink.
Washing un-sintered particles from the fabricated structure.
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Cullinan selectively sinters via a laser system [0043]. Particularly, a 532-nm nanosecond laser is exemplified [0175].
Regarding claim 7, Cullinan teaches that, for Cu nanoparticle inks, the sintering temperature is 330-450OC [0173].
Regarding claims 8, 9, and 11, Cullinan teaches that their nanoparticle ink comprises a plurality of metal nanoparticles selected from a group consisting of zinc, aluminum, yttrium, lanthanum, iron, molybdenum, niobium, tungsten, tantalum, manganese, titanium, zirconium, tin, nickel, chromium, cerium, platinum, and cobalt [0123]. The metal nanoparticles have a diameter between 8 and 100 nm [0123-125].
Regarding claim 12, Cullinan’s nanoparticle ink comprises a solvent [0009].
Regarding claim 13, Cullinan washes away un-sintered nanoparticles from the substrate with a solvent (Fig. 25, [0276-277]).
Regarding claim 16, it is noted that claim 13 (which claim 16 is a dependent of) limits the removal process is a chemical removal process or a mechanical removal process. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, even though Cullinan is silent on mechanical removal processes using ultra sonic energy or adhesive layers, they still fulfill the limitations of claim 16 because they teach a chemical removal process.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cullinan (US 2018/0065186 A1), as evidenced by Zenou (“Laser sintering of copper nanoparticles”).
Regarding claim 14, Cullinan teaches a washing step as done by Zenou [0252]. Zenou teaches that the unsintered regions are washed away with either water or a suitable organic solvent (pg. 9 §4 “Applications”).
Claims 1, 3, 8, 11, 13-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kotler (US 2015/0033557 A1), as evidenced by Tardos (“Introduction to Surfactants”, Ch. 2 “General Classification of Surfactants”).
Regarding claim 1, Kotler teaches a micro selective laser sintering apparatus and method. Their method comprises the following steps (Clm. 1):
Coating a uniform layer of nanoparticle ink onto the surface of a substrate.
Selectively sintering the uniform layer of nanoparticle ink.
Removing un-sintered particles from the fabricated structure.
Regarding claim 3, Kotler teaches that sintering is conducted with a laser [0033, 0081].
Regarding claim 8, Kotler uses silver and copper nanoparticle inks [0045].
Regarding claim 11, Kotler’s nanoparticles have a diameter of 10-100 nm (Abstract).
Regarding claims 13-15, Kotler teaches that unsintered nanoparticles can be washed away with a suitable solvent, such as water, isopropanol, ethanol, etc., and a surfactant [0051]. It is well known in the art that surfactants would be cationic, anionic, amphoteric, or nonionic (polymeric or nonpolymeric) (Tardos pg. 5 §2 “General Classification of Surfactants”).
Regarding claim 18, Kotler conducts laser sintering on a substrate comprising one or more electronic elements ([0030-34], Fig. 1A-3B). While Kotler exemplifies instances where the sintered overlaps with the electronic features of the first layer (Figs. 1A-3B), it would be known to adjust the sintering pattern geometry of subsequent layers to accommodate desired manufacturing parameters.
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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cullinan (US 2018/0065186 A1), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 17, Cullinan teaches a feature size resolution and laser spot size of 1 µm ([0009], Clm. 11). Based on these taught values, Cullinan’s method can achieve a distance between discrete printed features of 1µm or higher, which reads on the claimed minimum distance between printed patterns of 1-100 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(1).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cullinan (US 2018/0065186 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kotler (US 2015/0033557 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Cullinan’s method is an additive manufacturing method that ultimately produces a layer comprising the sintered electronic features and a dielectric (Fig. 22 #2200A). Subsequent layers are produced on top of a previously constructed layer (Fig. 22 #2200B). The first layer would therefore be the substrate for the next produced layer. Since the first produced layer contains functional electronic features, it reads on the claimed substrate. While Cullinan exemplifies instances where the sintered pattern in the subsequent layer overlaps with the electronic features of the first layer, it would be known to adjust the sintering pattern geometry of subsequent layers to accommodate desired manufacturing parameters.
While Cullinan teaches printing on substrates with functional electronic elements, they do not exemplify a base substrate that includes electronic elements.
Kotler teaches a method for producing a conductive path on a substrate via laser sintering of a nanoparticle ink (Abstract, [0006]). Particularly, Kotler teaches that their method is used to repair disconnected conductive traces on the substrate ([0030-34], Fig. 1A-B #104, 106, 110, 112, 116, 118). Any unsintered region is washed away, leaving behind a repaired region 108. Kotler teaches that this method is conducted because it does not damage any underlying functional elements on and within the substrate. Overall, Kotler conducts their printing method on a substrate that comprises one or more functional elements.
Cullinan and Kotler are analogous arts in the same field of endeavor. Particularly, both Cullinan’s and Kotler’s methods have significant overlaps (i.e. sintering of nanoparticle inks with a laser, washing away unsintered regions to expose an electronic feature, etc.).
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to print on a substrate comprising functional elements (as taught by Kotler) with Cullinan’s method because, due to the overlap in method features, Kotler’s taught advantages would be enabled. Additionally, while Kotler exemplifies instances where the sintered overlaps with the electronic features of the first layer (Figs. 1A-3), it would be known to adjust the sintering pattern geometry of subsequent layers to accommodate desired manufacturing parameters.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cullinan (US 2018/0065186 A1), as applied in claim 1 above, and in further view of Kim (US 2012/0070570 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Cullinan teaches a micro selective laser sintering apparatus and method. Their method comprises the following steps (Fig. 21, [0035]):
Coating a uniform layer of nanoparticle ink onto the surface of a substrate.
Selectively sintering the uniform layer of nanoparticle ink.
Washing un-sintered particles from the fabricated structure.
However, Cullinan uses a slot-die coater process rather than a micro-molding process to coat their substrates.
Kim teaches a method of forming conductive structures onto a substrate, wherein a flexible stamp is utilized to deposit a nanoparticle material onto a substrate (Abstract). Particularly, the flexible stamp, in contact with the substrate, is filled with nanoparticle material via micro-molding [0050-51, 0065]. The nanoparticle material is heated to anneal the nanoparticle material. The stamp is removed afterwards, leaving behind free-standing structures [0051]. Overall, Kim’s taught method reads on the claimed micro-molding process. Kim teaches that compared to other nanoparticle deposition methods, their method enables the production of high-aspect ratio features while utilizing low annealing temperatures [0003-06].
Cullinan and Kim are analogous arts in the same field of endeavor. Particularly, both are directed toward printing electronic structures on a substrate.
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the application to substitute the slot-die coater process in Cullinan’s taught method with Kim’s micro-molding nanoparticle deposition method because Kim’s method would enable an advantageous result of printed structures with higher aspect ratios compared to other deposition methods.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cullinan (US 2018/0065186 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Vanheusden (US 2006/0163744 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Cullinan does not teach the inclusion of components as disclosed in claim 10 within their nanoparticle ink.
Vanheusden teaches a metallic ink comprising metallic nanoparticles and a solvent for use in printing an electrical conductor [0009, 0013, 160, 0175]. Vanheusden’s metallic nanoparticles have compositions that overlap with Cullinan’s metallic nanoparticles (e.g. Ni, Al, Ti, etc.) ([0010], Clms. 3-5). Vanheusden also teaches an electrical conductor deposition method that overlaps with Cullinan’s taught method [0013]. With their ink, Vanheusden produces printed devices with a minimum resolution that is within Cullinan’s taught resolution [0282].
Additionally, Vanheusden teaches that their nanoparticle ink can also comprise alumina, silica, or glass. Vanheusden teaches that these components promote adhesion between the metallic ink and a selected substrate [0187].
Cullinan and Vanheusden are analogous arts in the same field of endeavor. Particularly, both are directed toward nanoparticle inks and their use in printing electrical structures on a substrate.
Therefore, given the overlap Cullinan’s and Vanheusden’s teachings, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to substitute the nanoparticle ink in Cullinan’s teachings with the Vanheusden’s metallic ink and still obtain a printed electrical feature that fulfills all of Cullinan’s limitations. Additionally, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate alumina, silica, or glass (as taught by Vanheusden) into Cullinan’s taught ink because it would enable an advantageous result of improved adhesion between the deposited ink and the substrate.
Regarding claim 6, Vanheusden teaches heating the ink up to 100OC to remove the majority of the liquid vehicle that comprises the ink [0057,0058]. Additionally, it is noted that Cullinan teaches that the build stage they use to conduct their method comprises a heating element that promotes evaporation of the ink solvent before sintering [0048, 0196]. Overall, Cullinan’s method accommodates Vanheusden’s taught heating step.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cullinan (US 2018/0065186 A1) in view of Vanheusden (US 2006/0163744 A1), as applied to claims 10 and 13 above, and in further view of in further view of Kotler (US 2015/0033557 A1), and as evidenced by Tardos (“Introduction to Surfactants”, Ch. 2 “General Classification of Surfactants”).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, neither Cullinan nor Vanheusden wash away unsintered nanoparticle ink region with the solvents and surfactants as claimed.
Kotler teaches that unsintered nanoparticles can be washed away with a suitable solvent, such as water, isopropanol, ethanol, etc., and a surfactant [0051]. Surfactants are added to enhance the washing process. Kotler teaches that this method is preferred for situations where large amounts of unsintered regions were deposited on the substrate [0051]. Additionally, it is well known in the art that surfactants would be cationic, anionic, amphoteric, or nonionic (polymeric or nonpolymeric) (Tardos pg. 5 §2 “General Classification of Surfactants”).
Cullinan, Vanheusden, and Kotler are analogous arts in the same field of endeavor. All three are directed toward nanoparticle inks and their use in printing electrical structures on a substrate.
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate Kotler’s washing step into the method of Cullinan in view of Vanheusden because doing so enables large-scale washing of unsintered regions from the substrate surface.
Claims 1, 3, 8, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saleh (“3D Inkjet Printing of Electronics Using UV Conversion”) in view of Mo (“Silver Nanoparticles Based Ink with Moderate Sintering in Flexible and Printed Electronics”).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 8, Saleh teaches a method for printing an electronic device using Ag nanoparticle ink (pg. 1, Abstract). The method comprises (pg. 3-4, §4 “Inkjet Printing and UV Sintering Apparatus”; Fig 2):
Inkjet printing the Ag nanoparticle ink onto a substrate.
Selectively sintering the printed ink with a 395 nm UV light source.
However, Saleh does not teach the removal of un-sintered nanoparticle ink.
Mo teaches that washing away un-sintered nanoparticles after selective sintering is a common technique in the art for the purpose of fully resolving the sintered electronic device on the substrate (pg. 11, Figs. 10 & 11).
Saleh and Mo are analogous arts in the same field of endeavor. Particularly, both are directed toward printing electronic structures on a substrate.
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate a washing step (as taught by Mo) into the printing method of Saleh because doing so enable the advantageous result of fully resolved electronic devices on the substrate.
Regarding claim 11, Saleh’s silver nanoparticles have a diameter of 10-70 nm (pg. 3, Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 12, Saleh teaches that their ink comprises a dispersant in the form of triethylene glycol monomethyl ether (pg. 3, §2.2 “Tuning the Sintering Wavelength for a Silver Nanoparticle Ink”).
Regarding claim 13, Mo teaches that the unsintered nanoparticles are washed away using an organic solvent.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saleh (“3D Inkjet Printing of Electronics Using UV Conversion”) in view of Mo (“Silver Nanoparticles Based Ink with Moderate Sintering in Flexible and Printed Electronics”) as applied to claim 1 above, and as evidenced by Chang (“Plasmonic Nanoparticles: Basics to Applications (I)”).
Regarding claim 4, Saleh reports the absorption spectrum of their taught Ag nanoparticle ink in addition to the emission spectrum of their taught UV light source (pg. 3, Fig. 1C and 1D). The second peak in the absorption spectrum (corresponding to wavelengths between 330-430 nm) is associated with light absorption of the Ag nanoparticles (pg. 3, §2.2 “Tuning the Sintering Wavelength for a Silver Nanoparticle Ink”). The wavelengths of this peak overlap with the emission spectrum of the UV light source. Based on the underlying scientific theory, Saleh’s reported spectra teach that a wavelength within the UV light emission spectrum hits the plasmonic frequency of the Ag nanoparticle that comprises the ink (See Chang §6.3 pgs. 139-144; Figs. 6.4 & 6.5).
Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure:
Marin (“Ultrasonic dispersion of nanostructured materials with probe sonication- practical aspects of sample preparation”). Marin teaches that ultrasonic dispersion is a known technique in the art for the purpose of suspending nanomaterials in a solution while disintegrating nanomaterial aggregates and agglomerates.
Wolk (US 9855730 B2). Wolk teaches a method for printing structures on a substrate. Attention is drawn to Fig. 8; wherein uncured material is peeled away from the substrate.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAVIER FLORES whose telephone number is 571-272-9130. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30AM-5:00PM.
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 at571-272-3458. 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.
/J.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights