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 1-17 in the reply filed on 6/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/16/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 2-17, “method of claim [x]” should read –method of claim [x], –.
In claim 6, last line, “Starch” should read –starch–.
In claim 7, last line, “CuO”” should read –CuO–.
In claim 12, third line, “four (4)” should read –four–.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-17 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the component" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the polymer matrix" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the conductive metal particles" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the laser energy" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the successive printed layers" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the other" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-17 are dependent on claim 1 and are thus also rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the other side" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the top surface" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “highly conductive” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “highly conductive” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a blue laser (450 nm),” which renders the claim indefinite, because the use of parentheses around “450 nm” makes it unclear whether the limitation inside the parentheses is required or not.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the printing location" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the destruction" in the second to last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the pressure" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the hot nozzle" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the peaks" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the gaps" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the composite copper-based thermoplastic polymer filament" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that claim 1 recites a “composite metal-based thermoplastic polymer filament.”
Claim 17 recites “drying the ground pellets for one night,” which renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear how much time “one night” is considered to be.
Claim 17 recites “68 degrees” and “between 165 and 190 degrees,” which renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear whether said degrees is referring to Celsius or Fahrenheit degrees.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the method for printing electronic components as recited. In particular, the closest prior art, WO2022/189230, wherein Gunster et al. (US 2025/0025939), hereinafter “Gunster,” is used and cited as an English language equivalent, teaches a fused deposition modeling process for producing a component is disclosed. In one example, the process comprises at least partial melting of a polymer filament filled with ceramic and/or metallic particles; applying a first layer of the at least partially melted polymer filament according to a first layer of a layer model of the component; allowing the layered, polymer filament to solidify; repeated layer-wise applying of the at least partially melted polymer filament successively on a previously applied and solidified layer according to layers subsequent to the first layer of the layer model until a blank of the component is present; and debinding of the component, wherein prior to the repeated layer-wise applying an at least sectional exposure to a laser radiation takes place (Abstract). However, Gunster teaches wherein the laser specifically does not cause sintering ([0039]), which is contrary to the instantly claimed method, wherein the laser beam sinters the conductive metal particles. Thus, claim 1 is distinct over the teachings of the prior art. Claims 2-17 further limit the subject matter of claim 1 and are thus also distinct over the teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY M LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0483. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1177. 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.
/ANTHONY M LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights