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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 5, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapp (WO 2018/065093; paragraph references to corresponding US 2020/0039868) in view of Kotz (Kotz, F. Three-dimensional printing of transparent fused silica glass. Nature 544, 337–339 (2017)).
Claim 1: Rapp discloses a nanocomposite including an organic binder (¶ 25); a glass powder dispersed in the organic binder, the glass powder including glass particles having a diameter ranging from 7 nm to 100 nm (¶ 25); a phase-forming agent dispersed in the organic binder, the phase-forming agent being solid or viscous at room temperature and forming an internal phase in the organic binder (¶ 32); wherein the glass powder is pre-modified with a dopant or wherein one or more dopant reagents including metal complexes are contained in the moldable nanocomposite as at least one modifying agent, the at least one modifying agent being dispersed in the binder in a non-crystalline state, (¶¶ 23, 68; the glass is modified with a dopant prior to sintering, thereby pre-modifying the glass of the nanocomposite); and wherein the content of the fused silica glass powder in the moldable nanocomposite is at least 5 parts per volume based on 100 parts per volume of the organic binder (Example 1), the organic binder being a thermoplastic which can be hardened upon cooling (¶ 27).
Rapp discloses the glass powder being quartz, but is silent as to the glass powder being fused silica, and the glass powder is pre-modified with a dopant. However, Kotz discloses a nanocomposite for producing a transparent article made of multicomponent fused silica glass including an organic binder (p. 337); a fused silica glass powder dispersed in the organic binder (p. 337), the fused silica glass powder including fused silica glass particles having a diameter of 40 nm (p. 337). As taught by Kotz, using fused silica glass particles in the claimed range allows for three-dimensional printing of high-performance materials having unmatched optical transparency, outstanding mechanical, chemical and thermal resistance as well as thermal and electrical insulating properties (p. 337). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have utilized the fused silica glass powder of Katz in the nanocomposite of Rapp in order to 3D print high-performance materials having unmatched optical transparency, outstanding mechanical, chemical and thermal resistance as well as thermal and electrical insulating properties.
Claim 4: Rapp discloses the glass powder further includes glass particles having a diameter ranging from 2 – 40 microns (¶ 34).
Claim 5: Rapp discloses the dopant including Au (¶ 68).
Claim 6: Kotz discloses the fused silica glass powder in the moldable nanocomposite being 37.5 vol% (p. 340).
Claim 7: Rapp discloses the phase-forming agent in the moldable nanocomposite being at least 5 parts per volume based on 100 parts per volume of the organic binder (Example 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Rapp does not disclose that the organic binder itself is a thermoplastic. This argument has been considered but is not persuasive. Rapp discloses that the polymerizable organic binder is polymerized to form a thermoplastic organic binder (¶¶ 26-27). Specifically, Rapp teaches, “the at least one polymerizable organic binder can be hardened by polymerization or crosslinking via supply of light or heat, thus giving a solid binder matrix.” (Emphasis added.) This solid binder matrix is a thermoplastic organic binder, which is no less than is required by the instant claims.
Applicant further argues that Rapp teaches the nanocomposite being filled with a filler, but “there is no longer any moldable nanocomposite present, taking into account that a brown part with the desired geometric structure/shape has already been obtained starting from the moldable nanocomposite.” This argument has been considered but is also not persuasive. Applicant appears to be relying on the preamble for the nanocomposite to be moldable. However, the body of the claim sets forth all of the limitations and does not refer back to the preamble which includes the phrase “moldable nanocomposite.” When the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation”).
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 for Bastian Rapp is not persuasive because the arguments appear to rely on the same preamble recitations that are referred to in the arguments presented above – that the nanocomposite must be moldable. However, as discussed above, the body of the claim sets forth all of the limitations and does not refer back to the preamble which includes the phrase “moldable nanocomposite.” When the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY THROWER whose telephone number is (571)270-5517. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm MT M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1487. 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.
/LARRY W THROWER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754