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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 7/20/2026 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because NPL document #22 is not in English and contains no English summary or abstract. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Response to Arguments
In response the amendments filed 8/7/2026, the previous rejections under 112(b) are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues that the references do not disclose choosing a velocity to control the shape, aspect ratio, or connectivity of the microstructures. Applicant argues that Plott does not explicitly disclose the shape, aspect ratio, or connectivity are modified by changing the nozzle height and velocity. This argument is not found to be persuasive. First, the claim merely recites that the nozzle height and nozzle velocity are chosen to control the shape, aspect ratio, or connectivity of the microstructure. There is no further disclosure of any specifics or additional steps of how the shape, aspect ratio, or connectivity are controlled or altered by this choice. Simply printing with any nozzle height or velocity seems to meet the claim particularly if there is no further action or step that is required to change the shape or connectivity. In other words, the claim seems to suggest that simply choosing a nozzle velocity or height controls the claimed characteristics. Second, Plott at [0047] and [0052]-[0053] is clear that the nozzle height controls the flatness (aspect ratio) of the deposited material. Since the microstructures are inside of the deposited material, it stands to reason that the microstructures would not be less fat (i.e., taller) than the rest of the deposited material. Therefore, although Plott does not explicitly use the words “aspect ratio,” it is clear that the aspect ratio of the microstructures is still being controlled. The same can be said of the nozzle velocity as described in [0059]-[0061]. Applicant also argues that the voids described in Plott are not related to the microstructures. Examiner does not find this argument convincing because the filling of the voids is motivation for why the nozzle height and velocity should be controlled to flatten the deposited material. The flattened material then fills and thereby prevents voids. Applicant also argues that Asgari does not describe the claimed aspect ratio, shape, etc., but the rejection does not rely on Asgari for teaching these limitations.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Applicant notes typographical errors in the rejection. Examiner notes the rejection of claim 4 was listed as claim 3 and that references to Plott were misattributed in several instances to Asgari. These typographical errors are corrected as appropriate and are now consistent with the rest of the office action. Applicant also argues with respect to claims 4 and 5 that because Asgari/Plott do not explicitly use the words “aspect ratio” that the references do not teach the claim limitations. Examiner disagrees. Plott’s teaching of flatness is a teaching of aspect ratio as described above with reference to claim 1. Again, Examiner notes that the flatness or aspect ratio of the microstructures cannot exceed that of the entire deposited material, see above. Plott describes that the flatness helps to fill voids which is a result-effective variable and would motivate someone to further modify the flatness or aspect ratio in order to fill the voids.
Regarding claims 10, 12, and 13, Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach a liquid metal and note that a liquid metal is a metal which is liquid, not a metal which is in liquid form. Examiner does not find this persuasive as a metal being in liquid form seems to refer to the metal being a liquid, see Asgari [0057]. This seems to meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. Additionally, Examiner notes that although the claim says “liquid metal” and the remarks seem to interpret “liquid metal” as only being a metal that is molten liquid, not simply in a liquid, claim 12 describes several metals that would not seem to be a liquid unless at elevated temperatures such as thallium, antimony, etc. Examiner suggests the term “liquid metal” should be further explained and the claims dependent on claim 10 should be checked to ensure they meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of “liquid metal.” Applicant also argues that InGaAs, indium gallium arsenide, is not a gallium-indium alloy. This is not persuasive because it is an alloy of all three of gallium, indium, and arsenic. The claim does not exclude alloys of additional materials beyond indium and gallium. As described above, the metal is added “in liquid form” as per Asgari [0057].
Regarding claim 21, Applicant argues that the references do not describe the claimed size. Applicant argues that the result of the result-effective variable of the particle size is the pore size of the manufacture article and that this is not a property of composite material comprising microstructures. This is not persuasive. As per Asgari [0041], “Thus it is possible to control the pore size and/or overall porosity of the resulting sintered metal materials by controlling the size of the metal-containing polymer particles or capsules.” Asgari clearly links the metal particle size to the result of the pore size/porosity. Examiner also notes that Asgari [0046] actually describes a particle of 5 microns which overlaps the lower limit of the claimed range.
Regarding claims 24 and 25, Applicant argues that the wet-on-wet process of Plott does not link microstructures of one layer to another layer. Examiner disagrees. Plott [0084]-[0086] describes how layers of material are bonded together. The term “interconnected” is broad and the claims do not describe how the microstructures are interconnected. It would seem that microstructures in two different layers which are all connected together by green material are “interconnected.” Additionally, the term “disturbing” is broad.
Regarding claim 34, Applicant argues that Plott does not describe modifying the nozzle height or diameter to control the aspect ratio, etc., of the microstructures. Examiner disagrees. Plott [0038] describes modifying the nozzle height during printing. The relationship between the nozzle height and flatness of the microstructures has been previously addressed with respect to claim 1, see above.
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 1-5, 10-13, 16, 18-19, 21, 24-25, 33-34, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asgari (US 2006/0211802) and Plott (US 2021/0129443.)
Regarding claim 1, Asgari meets the claimed, A method of additive manufacturing the method comprising: (a) extruding a first emulsion ink composition (Asgari [0082] discloses extruding) to form a first layer of a composite material (Asgari [0082] discloses forming a coating) the first emulsion ink composition comprises a plurality of discrete droplets of a liquid inclusion composition dispersed within a prepolymer composition; (Asgari [0026] describes a metal compound emulsion encapsulated by a polymer, [0057] discloses the metal compounds are in liquid form, [0046] discloses a prepolymer or oligomer) the composite material comprises a plurality of microstructures formed from the liquid inclusion composition embedded within a polymer matrix formed from the prepolymer composition; (Asgari [0046] describes microparticles formed from the metal and polymer emulsion)
Asgari does not describe the more specific details of the 3D printing process and does not meet the claimed, (a) extruding a first emulsion ink composition through a first nozzle in a pattern that corresponds to a first layer of an article, and a first nozzle height and a first nozzle velocity at which the first emulsion ink composition is extruded from the first nozzle are chosen to control one or more of a shape, an aspect ratio, and a connectivity of the plurality of microstructures formed from the liquid inclusion composition embedded within a polymer matrix formed from the prepolymer composition in the first layer of the article.
Analogous in the field of 3D printing, Plott also discloses a 3D printing process and discusses printing compositions including dispersions which are similar to emulsions. Plott meets the claimed, (a) extruding a first emulsion ink composition through a first nozzle in a pattern that corresponds to a first layer of an article, (Plott [0026] discloses depositing layers according to slice information, [0029] discloses printing via a nozzle for each layer) and a first nozzle height and a first nozzle velocity at which the first emulsion ink composition is extruded from the first nozzle are chosen to control one or more of a shape, an aspect ratio, and a connectivity of the plurality of microstructures formed from the liquid inclusion composition embedded within a polymer matrix formed from the prepolymer composition in the first layer of the article (Plott [0047] describes choosing the nozzle height to control the flatness or spread of the deposited material (shape or aspect ratio), [0052]-[0053] describes controlling the nozzle velocity to adjust the volumetric flow rate and [0059]-[0061] describes that modifying the flow rate modifies the flat shape of the deposited composition.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the 3D printing process disclosed in Asgari with the process of printing through a nozzle as described in Plott in order to control the shape of the material being deposited, see Plott [0047]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the 3D printing method of Asgari with the step of controlling the shape or aspect ratio of the printed structure via controlling the nozzle height and velocity as disclosed in Plott in order to flatten the deposited composition and fill any voids, see Plott [0037] and [0060].
Regarding claim 2, Asgari as modified by Plott previously meets the claimed, The method of claim 1, further comprising: (b) extruding a second emulsion ink the second emulsion ink composition comprises a second plurality of discrete droplets of a second liquid inclusion composition dispersed within a second prepolymer composition; (Asgari [0082] discloses extruding, [0026], [0057], and [0046] disclose the emulsified liquid metal within the prepolymer) the subsequent layer comprises a second plurality of microstructures formed from the second liquid inclusion composition embedded within a second polymer matrix formed from the second prepolymer composition; (Asgari [0046] describes microparticles formed from the metal and polymer emulsion)
Asgari does not disclose a second nozzle, second nozzle height, or second nozzle velocity. Plott meets the claimed, extruding a second emulsion ink through a second nozzle (Plott [0030] discloses using additional supplemental nozzles) composition to form a subsequent layer of the composite material in a pattern that corresponds to a subsequent layer of the article the subsequent layer is formed on either the first layer of the article or another subsequent layer of the article; (Plott [0026]-[0027] discloses layer-by-layer printing) and a second nozzle height and a second nozzle velocity at which the second emulsion ink composition is extruded from the nozzle are chosen to control one or more of a shape, an aspect ratio, and a connectivity of the second plurality of microstructures formed from the second liquid inclusion composition and embedded within the second polymer matrix in the subsequent layer of the article (Plott [0047] describes choosing the nozzle height to control the flatness or spread of the deposited material (shape or aspect ratio), [0052]-[0053] describes controlling the nozzle velocity to adjust the volumetric flow rate and [0059]-[0061] describes that modifying the flow rate modifies the flat shape of the deposited composition.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the 3D printing process of Asgari with the second nozzle printing a layer on top of the previously deposited layer disclosed in Plott in order to accommodate other compositions or to print additional objects or layers simultaneously, see Plott [0030]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the printing method of Asgari with the additional nozzle height and velocity in order to flatten the deposited composition and fill any voids, see Plott [0037] and [0060].
Regarding claim 3, Plott further meets the claimed, The method according to claim 2, wherein step (b) is repeated multiple times to form the article in a layer-by-layer approach (Plott [0026]-[0027] discloses layer-by-layer printing multiple times).
Regarding claim 4, Asgari does not disclose the aspect ratio. Plott does not explicitly disclose the aspect ratio and does not explicitly meet the claimed, The method of claim 1, wherein an aspect ratio of at least one of the microstructures formed from the liquid inclusion composition is from about 3 up to about 500, however, an object of Plott is to control the amount of spread or flatness of the deposited material in order to fill voids, see Plott [0047]. Plott discloses that the width of the deposited material is a result-effective variable which affects the void amount in the deposited layer. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the flatness of the deposited layer and thereby the aspect ratio (increased flatness is increased width and therefore increased aspect ratio) through routine optimization in order to achieve the best void fill, see Plott [0047] and MPEP §2144.05(II)(B).
Regarding claim 5, Asgari does not disclose the aspect ratio. Plott does not explicitly disclose the aspect ratio and does not explicitly meet the claimed, The method of claim 1, wherein a mean aspect ratio of the microstructures formed from the liquid inclusion composition is from about 1 to about 500 however, an object of Plott is to control the amount of spread or flatness of the deposited material in order to fill voids, see Plott [0047]. Plott discloses that the width of the deposited material is a result-effective variable which affects the void amount in the deposited layer. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the flatness of the deposited layer and thereby the aspect ratio (increased flatness is increased width and therefore increased aspect ratio) through routine optimization in order to achieve the best void fill, see Plott [0047] and MPEP §2144.05(II)(B).
Regarding claim 10, Asgari meets the claimed, The method of claim 1, wherein the liquid inclusion composition comprises a liquid metal (Asgari [0026] describes a metal compound emulsion encapsulated by a polymer, [0057] discloses the metal compounds are in liquid form.)
Regarding claim 11, Asgari meets the claimed, The method of claim 1, wherein the liquid inclusion composition includes a surface tension modifier (Asgari [0046] discloses the encapsulated metal contains surfactants which are surface tension modifiers.)
Regarding claim 12, Asgari meets the claimed, The method of claim 10, wherein the liquid metal comprises gallium (Ga), rubidium (Rb), cesium (Cs), francium (Fr), indium (In), bismuth (Bi), tin (Sn), cadmium (Cd), thallium (Tl), antimony (Sb), alloys thereof and alloys with other elements, or mixtures thereof (Asgari [0032] discloses metals including InGaAs.)
Regarding claim 13, Asgari meets the claimed, The method according to claim 10, wherein the liquid metal comprises a gallium-indium alloy (Asgari [0032] discloses metals including InGaAs.)
Regarding claim 16, Asgari meets the claimed, The method of claim 1, wherein the prepolymer composition comprises an elastomer, and wherein the elastomer comprises silicone, polyurethane, thermoplastic elastomers, or a combination thereof (Asgari [0049] discloses polymers including polyurethanes, [0053] generally discloses elastomers.)
Regarding claim 18, Asgari meets the claimed, The method of claim 1, wherein the prepolymer composition comprises a thermoset, wherein the thermoset is selected from the group consisting of epoxies, polyesters, polyurethanes, polyimides, acrylonitriles, copolymers thereof, and blends thereof (Asgari [0048] discloses thermosets, [0049] discloses a number of polymers including polyurethanes.)
Regarding claim 19, Asgari meets the claimed, The method of claim 1, wherein the prepolymer composition comprises a thermoplastic, (Asgari [0048] discloses thermoplastic polymers) wherein the thermoplastic is selected from the group consisting of polyolefins, polystyrenes, polyesters, polycarbonates, nylons, acrylics, polyacrylates, butyl, polybutenes, polyisobutylenes, liquid crystal polymers (LCP), ethylene copolymers, vinyl chloride, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), ionomers, ketones, polyamides, polyether block amide (PBA), polyphenylene oxide (PPO), polyphenylene sulphide (PPS), copolymers thereof, and blends thereof (Asgari [0049] discloses polyolefins.)
Regarding claim 21, Asgari does not explicitly meet the claimed, The method of claim 1, wherein the droplets of the liquid inclusion composition in the first emulsion ink composition are from about 5 pm and up to about 800 pm in diameter, wherein the diameter of a given droplet is defined as the diameter of a perfectly spherical droplet comprising the same volume of the droplet, however Asgari [0041] and [0047] describe the metal particle size is a result-effective variable which affects the porosity of a final product made by the composition. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the size of the metal particles through routine optimization in order to modify the future pore size of manufactured articles, see Asgari [0041].
Regarding claim 24, Asgari does not describe different layers and does not meet the claimed, The method of claim 1, further comprising disturbing the first layer of the composite material to interconnect one or more distinct microstructures of the plurality of microstructures.
Plott meets the claimed, The method of claim 1, further comprising disturbing the first layer of the composite material to interconnect one or more distinct microstructures of the plurality of microstructures. (Plott [0084]-[0086] describe “wet-on-wet” printing such that a second layer is printed on top of a still wet first layer in order to physically or chemically bond the layers together. The printing of the second layer contacting the first layer is the “disturbing” of the first layer.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the process of Asgari with the wet-on-wet printing as described in Plott in order to increase the durability of the printed article, see Plott [0085].
Regarding claim 25, Plott further meets the claimed, The method according to claim 24, wherein one or both of the first nozzle height and the first nozzle velocity are chosen to interconnect two or more of the plurality of discrete droplets to form interconnected microstructures (Platt [0052]-[0053] describes controlling the nozzle velocity to adjust the volumetric flow rate and [0059]-[0061] describes that modifying the flow rate modifies the flat shape of the deposited composition and fill voids. Filling voids helps form interconnected microstructures.)
Regarding claim 33, Asgari does not disclose subsequent heat or UV radiation to cure and does not meet the claimed, The method of claim 2, wherein one or both of the first layer of the composite material and the subsequent layer of the composite material are cured using one or more of heat and UV light to form one or both of the polymer matrix and the second polymer matrix.
Plott meets the claimed, The method of claim 2, wherein one or both of the first layer of the composite material and the subsequent layer of the composite material are cured using one or more of heat and UV light to form one or both of the polymer matrix and the second polymer matrix. (Plott [0186]-[0187] describe a solidification step including exposure to UV radiation.)
The courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method of printing disclosed in Asgari with the UV curing step disclosed in Plott because UV curing is a known method of curing a photocurable polymer, see Plott [0188]-[0189].
Regarding claim 34, Plott further meets the claimed, The method of claim 1, wherein one or both of the first nozzle height and the first nozzle velocity are controllably modified as the first layer is extruded so that one or more of a shape, an aspect ratio, or a connectivity of the plurality of microstructures varies across the first layer (Plott [0038] discloses modifying the nozzle height during printing.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method of Asgari with the step of modifying the nozzle height during printing in order to control the flatness of the deposited material, see Plott [0047].
Regarding claim 37, Asgari only describes one composition but does not describe multiple nozzles. Plott meets the claimed, The method according to claim 2, wherein the second liquid inclusion composition is the same as the liquid inclusion composition and the second prepolymer composition is the same as the prepolymer composition (Plott [0030] discloses multiple nozzles printing a particular composition.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the method of Asgari by combining the second nozzle being used to print the same composition as described in Plott in order to print multiple components at a time, see Plott [0030].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA BARTLETT whose telephone number is (571)272-4953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm 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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/V.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights