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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 21 July 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 21 July 2026 was received after the mailing date of the Notice of Allowance on 20 April 2026 and after Issue Fees were paid on 20 July 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement was considered by the Examiner, annotated, and attached to the PTO-2300 mailed 07 August 2026.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 1-20 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to IDA et al. (JP 2014049380 A), submitted with the IDS indicated above as FPD #1 and cited in the Notice of Reasons for Refusal regarding counterpart Japanese Application 2025-533376, submitted with the IDS indicated above as NPL #2. Rejection based on the newly cited reference(s) follows.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIRSCHSOHN et al. (US 2022/0111585 A1) in view of Parkar et al. (US 2020/0197138 A1) and further in view of IDA et al. (JP 2014049380 A) – Machine Translation.
As related to independent claim 1, HIRSCHSOHN et al. teaches a composite ink for use in a three-dimensional printing system (HIRSCHSOHN et al. – Page 1, Paragraph 2) comprising: a carrier ink [i.e. jettable material] comprising a curable material (HIRSCHSOHN et al. – Page 1, Paragraph 7); and a solid powder [i.e. silica particles] filler dispersed in the carrier ink (HIRSCHSOHN et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 21-23). Parkar et al. specifically defines powder as the material composed of fine particles and then specifies the use of nano-sized silicas in the carrier for use in 3-dimensional article printing (Parkar et al. – Page 4, Paragraphs 30-32 and Page 5, Paragraphs 50-52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to specify the solid powder of HIRSCHSOHN et al. with the solid powder specifying nano-sized silicas of Parkar et al. in an effort to indicate the features and components of printable composite inks for use in additive manufacturing and three-dimensional printing which are well known (Parkar et al. – Page 4, Paragraphs 29-30). The features related to the stability of the ink composition are implicitly taught by the combination of HIRSCHSOHN et al. and Parkar et al. and well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Meanwhile, IDA et al. specifically teaches the rheological properties of the solid dispersion system having an average loss coefficient tan delta of 2 or less over the angular frequency range of 0.5 to 5 rad/s [i.e. 1 rad/s] (IDA et al. – Paragraphs 4-8 & 25). The specifying of rheological properties in IDA et al. are specifically related to the dispersion stability of the ink composition. IDA et al. goes on to teach this reasoning, citing examples of properties outside of the taught ranges with “not preferrable” results, and resulting in “increase in resistance” versus the required resistance stability preventing cracks, breaks, short circuits, bleeding, etc.… (IDA et al. – Paragraphs 25-26). Therefore, the combination of HIRSCHSOHN et al., Parkar et al., and IDA et al. teach the composite ink comprising the same compounding and viscosity characteristics as the claimed “solid powder filler” and IDA et al. specifically teaching the rheological properties as claimed, has a highly accelerated life testing (HALT) score of at least 2 when tested at 65°C for at least 14 days, and/or wherein the composite ink, in an uncured state, has an average loss factor tan δ of less than or equal to 2 over an angular frequency range of 0.5 to 5 rad/s (Parkar et al. – Page 4, Paragraph 29 – Page 6, Paragraph 70 and IDA et al. – Paragraphs 4-8 & 25-26).
As related to dependent claim 2, the combination of HIRSCHSOHN et al., Parkar et al., and IDA et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the composite ink has a HALT score of 3 when tested at 65°C for at least 14 days (Parkar et al. – Page 4, Paragraph 29 – Page 6, Paragraph 70 and IDA et al. – Paragraphs 4-8 & 25-26).
As related to dependent claim 3, the combination of HIRSCHSOHN et al., Parkar et al., and IDA et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the composite ink has a shear viscosity of no greater than 2000 cps at 30°C, based on a shear rate of 1.0 (1/s), when measured in accordance with the shear rate sweep procedure of Example 3 (HIRSCHSOHN et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 6-9; Page 2, Paragraphs 19-32; Page 26, Paragraph 519; & Figure 12, shown below; Parkar et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 6-9 and Page 22, Paragraph 238 and Table 5 and IDA et al. – Paragraphs 4-8; 25-28; & 39).
PNG
media_image1.png
462
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As related to dependent claim 4, the combination of HIRSCHSOHN et al., Parkar et al., and IDA et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the curable material of the carrier ink comprises one or more monomeric curable materials; and the one or more monomeric curable materials is present in the carrier ink in an amount of 15-85 wt. %, based on the total weight of the carrier ink (HIRSCHSOHN et al. – Page 2, Paragraph 23; Page 3, Paragraphs 47-49; Page 4, Paragraph 62; & Table 2 and Parkar et al. – Page 5, Paragraphs 43-55; Page 7, Paragraph 77; and Page 10, Paragraphs 136-137).
As related to dependent claim 5, the combination of HIRSCHSOHN et al., Parkar et al., and IDA et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the curable material of the carrier ink comprises one or more oligomeric curable materials; and the one or more oligomeric curable materials is present in the carrier ink in an amount of 15-85 wt. %, based on the total weight of the carrier ink (HIRSCHSOHN et al. – Page 2, Paragraph 23; Page 3, Paragraphs 46-49; Page 4, Paragraph 62; & Table 2 and Parkar et al. – Page 5, Paragraphs 42-55; Page 7, Paragraph 77; and Page 10, Paragraph 136 – Page 11, Paragraph 141).
As related to dependent claim 6, the combination of HIRSCHSOHN et al., Parkar et al., and IDA et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the curable material of the carrier ink comprises a combination of one or more monomeric curable materials and one or more oligomeric curable materials (HIRSCHSOHN et al. – Page 2, Paragraph 23; Page 3, Paragraphs 46-49; Page 4, Paragraph 62; & Table 2 and Parkar et al. – Page 5, Paragraphs 42-55; Page 7, Paragraph 77; and Page 10, Paragraph 136 – Page 11, Paragraph 141).
As related to dependent claim 7, the combination of HIRSCHSOHN et al., Parkar et al., and IDA et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the curable material of the carrier ink comprises one or more acrylate, methacrylate, or vinyl species (HIRSCHSOHN et al. – Page 2, Paragraph 23; Page 3, Paragraphs 46-49; Page 4, Paragraph 62; Page 15, Paragraph 267; & Table 2; Parkar et al. – Page 5, Paragraphs 42-55; Page 7, Paragraph 77; Page 10, Paragraph 136 – Page 11, Paragraph 141; Page 13, Paragraph 158; IDA et al. – Paragraph 19).
As related to dependent claim 8, the combination of HIRSCHSOHN et al., Parkar et al., and IDA et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the curable material of the carrier ink comprises one or more epoxy species (Parkar et al. – Page 5, Paragraphs 42-55; Page 7, Paragraph 77; Page 10, Paragraph 136 and IDA et al. – Paragraphs 16-17 & 20).
As related to dependent claim 9, the combination of HIRSCHSOHN et al., Parkar et al., and IDA et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach all or substantially all of the curable material of the carrier ink is curable by free-radical polymerization (HIRSCHSOHN et al. – Page 11, Paragraphs 162-164 and Parkar et al. – Page 10, Paragraph 136).
As related to dependent claim 10, the combination of HIRSCHSOHN et al., Parkar et al., and IDA et al. as applied above and continues to teach the carrier ink further comprises a photoinitiator component; and the photoinitiator component is present in the carrier ink in an amount of no greater than 5 wt. % (HIRSCHSOHN et al. – Page 17, Paragraphs 324-326 and Parkar et al. – Page 7, Paragraph 78).
As related to dependent claim 11, the combination of HIRSCHSOHN et al., Parkar et al., and IDA et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the carrier ink has a shear viscosity of no greater than 100 cps at 30°C, based on a shear rate of 1.0 (1/s), when measured in accordance with the shear rate sweep procedure of Example 2 (HIRSCHSOHN et al. – Figures 7 & 12; Parkar et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 6-9; and IDA et al. – Paragraphs 4-8; 25-28; & 39).
PNG
media_image2.png
464
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As related to dependent claim 12, the combination of HIRSCHSOHN et al., Parkar et al., and IDA et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the solid powder filler comprises a SiO2 powder [i.e. silica powder or particles] (HIRSCHSOHN et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 19-23 and Parkar et al. – Page 4, Paragraph 33).
As related to dependent claim 13, the combination of HIRSCHSOHN et al., Parkar et al., and IDA et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the solid powder filler has an average particle size of 0.1 um to 1 um; and the composite ink comprises no or substantially no solid powder filler having a particle size of less than 100 nm (HIRSCHSOHN et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 19-25 and Parkar et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 6-7).
As related to dependent claim 14, the combination of HIRSCHSOHN et al., Parkar et al., and IDA et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the solid powder filler has an average particle aspect ratio of 1 to 1.1; the solid powder filler comprises no or substantially no irregularly shaped particles (HIRSCHSOHN et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 19-25 & Page 12, Paragraph 186 and Parkar et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 6-7; Page 5, Paragraph 44; & Page 8, Paragraphs 93-99).
As related to dependent claim 15, the combination of HIRSCHSOHN et al., Parkar et al., and IDA et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the solid powder filler has an average particle size of 0.1 um to 1 um; and the solid powder filler has an average specific surface area of less than 30 m2/g (HIRSCHSOHN et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 19-25 & Page 12, Paragraph 186 and Parkar et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 6-7; Page 5, Paragraph 44; & Page 8, Paragraph 93).
As related to dependent claim 16, the combination of HIRSCHSOHN et al., Parkar et al., and IDA et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the solid powder filler has a functionalized exterior surface; and the exterior surface of the solid powder filler is functionalized with (meth)acrylate moieties (HIRSCHSOHN et al. – Page 12, Paragraphs 193-196 & Page 13, Paragraphs 218-219 and Parkar et al. – Page 5, Paragraph 42 & Page 8, Paragraph 101).
As related to dependent claim 17, the combination of HIRSCHSOHN et al., Parkar et al., and IDA et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the solid powder filler is present in an amount of 45-70 wt. %, based on the total weight of the composite ink; and wherein the carrier ink is present in an amount of 25-55 wt. %, based on the total weight of the composite ink (HIRSCHSOHN et al. – Page 14, Paragraphs 239-242 and Parkar et al. – Page 1, Paragraph 6).
As related to dependent claim 18, the combination of HIRSCHSOHN et al., Parkar et al., and IDA et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the composite ink further comprises a dispersant; and the dispersant is present in an amount of 0.2-5 wt. % compared to the amount of solid powder filler (HIRSCHSOHN et al. – Page 17, Paragraph 329 and IDA et al. – Paragraphs 21-24).
As related to dependent claim 19, the combination of HIRSCHSOHN et al., Parkar et al., and IDA et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the composite ink is not a Bingham fluid at 30°C (HIRSCHSOHN et al. – Page 3, Paragraph 52; Page 14, Paragraph 244; & Page 13, Paragraph 211-216 and Parkar et al. – Page 16, Paragraph 194 & Page 17, Paragraph 208).
As related to dependent claim 20, the combination of HIRSCHSOHN et al., Parkar et al., and IDA et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach a method of printing a three-dimensional article comprising: providing the composite ink; and selectively solidifying layers of the composite ink to form the article (HIRSCHSOHN et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 2-6 and Parkar et al. – Page 1, Paragraph 7).
Conclusion
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular Figures & Reference Numbers, Columns, Paragraphs and Line Numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JOHN P ZIMMERMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3049. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1730 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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached at (571) 272-5960. 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.
/John P Zimmermann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
