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 submission of the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 20th, 2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendment, filed on May 1st, 2026, the following are withdrawn from the previous office action, mailed on February 3rd, 2026.
Rejections of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in view of the amendments
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in view of the amendments, see remarks filed May 1st, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Breadmore et al. (WO 2021062487 A1).
Applicant argues none of the cited references teaches or suggests the use of two separate channels (of a multi-channel printer head) or two separate printer heads which are separately supplied with, uncombined, a non-carbon nanotube-containing dielectric ink from a first vessel and a carbon nanotube-containing dielectric ink from a second vessel to print the two inks on an object, thereby creating a new functional material, as claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP 2145 (IV). The rejection of the claims is based on a combination of Slep and Chi, wherein Slep discloses the use of two separate channels (of a multi-channel printer head) ([0032]; multichannel piezo head) or two separate printer heads ([0029]; multiple heads) which are supplied with a first curable liquid and a second curable liquid ([0007]; first channel prints a first curable liquid and second channel prints a second curable liquid). As evidenced by Figure 4C, the first curable liquid and the second curable liquid are separately supplied from a cartridge with A and a cartridge with B. The first curable liquid may not comprise carbon nanotubes ([0009]) and corresponds to the claimed non-carbon nanotube-containing ink. The second curable liquid may comprise carbon nanotubes ([0009]) and corresponds to the claimed carbon nanotube-containing ink. Slep further discloses the at least one layer of the carbon nanotube-containing ink being at least partially in contact with the at least one layer of the non-carbon nanotube-containing ink (Fig. 4C; [0030, 0032]; portions of layer or layers formed from first curable liquid and second curable liquid respectively can be adjacent) such that at least a portion of the at least one layer of the carbon nanotube-containing ink which is in contact with the at least one layer of the non-carbon nanotube-containing ink at least partially intermixes with the at least one layer of the non-carbon nanotube-containing ink ([0027]; two or more curable liquids can be printed in precisely-controlled amounts to precisely control the properties of the composite material in a layer-by-layer fashion. For example, by controlling the mixing of 2, 3, 4, or more different curable liquids during the printing the properties of the cured object can be precisely controlled in all directions). While Slep discloses the first and second curable liquids can be selected to additively manufacture materials and devices with precisely-controlled structural, optical, electrical, thermal, or other properties ([0004]), Slep does not explicitly disclose the ink is dielectric. However, in the analogous art Chi teaches inkjet printing ([0085]) using dielectric ink ([0085]), wherein a first dielectric ink can form an insulating layer ([0085]) and a second dielectric ink can form an isolating layer ([0091]). From these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art can recognize that the inks in the process of Slep can be selected to be dielectric as the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. As such, the combination of Slep and Chi teaches all the limitations presented in the above argument.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims necessitate a new grounds of rejection provided below.
New Grounds of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slep et al. (US 20170282450 A1; hereafter Slep), in view of Chi et al. (US 20150004756 A1; hereafter Chi), as evidenced by Huang et al. (US 20200277195 A1; hereafter Huang), and Breadmore et al. (WO 2021062487 A1; hereafter Breadmore).
Regarding claim 1, Slep discloses an additive manufacturing process ([0016]) using an inkjet printer ([0029]; multichannel piezo inkjet head) for forming at least one layer of a carbon nanotube-containing ink ([0009]; second curable liquid comprising carbon nanotube) and at least one layer of a non-carbon nanotube-containing ink ([0009]; first curable liquid without carbon nanotube) directly or indirectly on an object ([0027]), which comprises the steps of:
containing the non-carbon nanotube-containing ink in a first vessel (Fig. 4C; liquid A, which corresponds to the first curable liquid, is stored in cartridge A) of the inkjet printer;
supplying the non-carbon nanotube-containing ink to a first printer head (Fig. 4C; [0029]; first head of multiple heads) or to a first channel of a multi-channel printer head (Fig. 4C; [0007]; a first channel of the multichannel piezo head device) of the inkjet printer from the first vessel;
applying by the first printer head or the first channel of the multi-channel printer head of the inkjet printer the non-carbon nanotube-containing ink directly or indirectly to the object (Fig. 4C; [0032]; printing first curable liquid to form a layer or a portion of a layer) in a printing process ([0032]) to form the at least one layer of the non-carbon nanotube-containing ink in liquid form ([0032]) directly or indirectly thereon;
containing the carbon nanotube-containing ink in a second vessel (Fig. 4C; liquid B, which corresponds to the second curable liquid, is stored in cartridge B) of the inkjet printer;
supplying the carbon nanotube-containing ink to a second printer head (Fig. 4C; [0029]; second head of multiple heads) or to a second channel of the multi-channel printer head (Fig. 4C; [0007]; a second channel of the multichannel piezo head device) of the inkjet printer from the second vessel, wherein the first vessel is not in fluid communication with the second vessel (Fig. 4C; cartridges A and B are separate) to ensure that the non-carbon nanotube-containing ink contained in the first vessel is not mixed with the carbon nanotube-containing ink contained in the second vessel prior to the non-carbon nanotube-containing ink and the carbon nanotube-containing ink being supplied to the first printer head or the first channel of the multi-channel printer head and the second printer head or the second channel of the multi-channel printer head, respectively (Fig. 4C; cartridges A and B are separate, and so their materials are not mixed prior to being supplied to the multiple heads/multichannel piezo head device);
and applying by the second printer head or the second channel of the multi-channel printer head of the inkjet printer the carbon nanotube-containing ink directly or indirectly to the object (Fig. 4C; [0032]; printing second curable liquid to form a layer or a portion of a layer) in the printing process to form the at least one layer of the carbon nanotube-containing ink in liquid form ([0032]) directly or indirectly thereon, the at least one layer of the carbon nanotube-containing ink being at least partially in contact with the at least one layer of the non-carbon nanotube-containing ink (Fig. 4C; [0030, 0032]; portions of layer or layers formed from first curable liquid and second curable liquid respectively can be adjacent) such that at least a portion of the at least one layer of the carbon nanotube-containing ink which is in contact with the at least one layer of the non-carbon nanotube-containing ink at least partially intermixes with the at least one layer of the non-carbon nanotube-containing ink ([0027]; two or more curable liquids can be printed in precisely-controlled amounts to precisely control the properties of the composite material in a layer-by-layer fashion. For example, by controlling the mixing of 2, 3, 4, or more different curable liquids during the printing the properties of the cured object can be precisely controlled in all directions),
and photocuring together in the printing process the at least one layer of the non-carbon nanotube-containing dielectric ink ([0032]), the at least one layer of the carbon nanotube-containing dielectric ink and the at least portion of the at least one layer of the carbon nanotube-containing dielectric ink which at least partially intermixes with the at least one layer of the non-carbon nanotube-containing dielectric ink such that carbon nanotubes of the at least portion of the at least one layer of the carbon nanotube-containing dielectric ink which at least partially intermixes with the at least one layer of the non-carbon nanotube containing dielectric ink are added to the at least one layer of the non-carbon nanotube-containing dielectric ink ([0027]; two or more curable liquids can be printed in precisely-controlled amounts to precisely control the properties of the composite material in a layer-by-layer fashion. For example, by controlling the mixing of 2, 3, 4, or more different curable liquids during the printing the properties of the cured object can be precisely controlled in all directions) during the printing process ([0032]).
While Slep discloses the first and second curable liquids can be selected to additively manufacture materials and devices with precisely-controlled structural, optical, electrical, thermal, or other properties ([0004]) and the carbon nanotube-containing ink and the non-carbon nanotube-containing ink are photocured ([0032]), Slep does not explicitly disclose the ink is dielectric and the carbon nanotube-containing ink and the non-carbon nanotube-containing ink are applied without photocuring.
However, in the analogous art Chi teaches inkjet printing ([0085]) using dielectric ink ([0085]), wherein a first dielectric ink can form an insulating layer ([0085]) and a second dielectric ink can form an isolating layer ([0091]).
Slep and Chi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of inkjet printing circuit boards. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Slep with the teachings of Chi to provide the ink (the first and second curable liquids) is dielectric. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. As evidenced by Huang, dielectric inks comprising carbon nanotubes ([0098]; dielectric constant solvents with MWCNTs) are known in the art of inkjet printing ([0044]). As such, there would be more than a reasonable expectation of success in selecting the first and second curable liquids as dielectric, wherein the second curable liquid can comprise carbon nanotubes. Doing so would allow for the manufacture of a greater variety of circuit board devices with precisely-controlled properties (Slep [0016]).
Slep, in view of Chi, does not explicitly disclose the carbon nanotube-containing ink and the non-carbon nanotube-containing ink are applied without photocuring.
However, in the analogous art Breadmore teaches an additive manufacturing process using an inkjet printer ([0027]), comprising applying a first ink ([0008]; first curable material) and a second ink ([0008]; second curable material) that is in contact with the first ink such that the first ink and second ink partially intermix ([0008]; flattening the droplets of the first and second material so that a plurality of droplets of the first material are intermixed with a plurality of droplets of the second material). After the intermixing, the first ink and the second ink are photocured together ([0008, 0011]).
Slep and Breadmore are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of additive manufacturing by inkjet printing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Slep, in view of Chi, with the teachings of Breadmore to provide the carbon nanotube-containing ink and the non-carbon nanotube-containing ink are applied without photocuring. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow for additively manufacturing objects in an inexpensive, fast and easy to mass produce manner (Breadmore [0007]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Slep discloses an additive manufacturing process as defined by Claim 1, wherein Slep further discloses the at least one layer of the non-carbon nanotube-containing dielectric ink resides directly or indirectly below the at least one layer of the carbon nanotube-containing dielectric ink (Fig. 4A-C; first and second curable liquid layers can be printed in sandwich orientation).
Regarding claim 8, modified Slep discloses an additive manufacturing process as defined by Claim 1, wherein Slep further discloses the at least one layer of the non-carbon nanotube-containing dielectric ink resides directly or indirectly above the at least one layer of the carbon nanotube-containing dielectric ink (Fig. 4A-C; first and second curable liquid layers can be printed in sandwich orientation).
Regarding claim 9, modified Slep discloses an additive manufacturing process as defined by Claim 1, wherein Slep further discloses the at least one layer of the non-carbon nanotube-containing dielectric ink includes more than one layer of the non-carbon nanotube-containing dielectric ink (Fig. 4A-B; [0009]; first curable liquid is used to form plural/adjacent layers), at least one layer of the more than one layer of the non-carbon nanotube-containing dielectric ink being at least partially in contact with the at least one layer of the carbon nanotube-containing dielectric ink ([0029, 0030, 0032]; portions of layer or layers formed from first curable liquid and second curable liquid respectively can be adjacent or overprinted).
Regarding claim 10, modified Slep discloses an additive manufacturing process as defined by Claim 1, wherein Slep further discloses the at least one layer of the carbon nanotube-containing dielectric ink includes more than one layer of the carbon nanotube-containing dielectric ink (Fig. 4A-B; [0009]; second curable liquid is used to form plural/adjacent layers), at least one layer of the more than one layer of the carbon nanotube-containing dielectric ink being at least partially in contact with the at least one layer of the non-carbon nanotube-containing dielectric ink ([0029, 0030, 0032]; portions of layer or layers formed from first curable liquid and second curable liquid respectively can be adjacent or overprinted).
Regarding claim 11, modified Slep discloses an additive manufacturing process as defined by Claim 1, wherein Slep further discloses the object is a printed circuit board ([0055]; circuit board).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slep et al. (US 20170282450 A1; hereafter Slep), in view of Chi et al. (US 20150004756 A1; hereafter Chi) and Breadmore et al. (WO 2021062487 A1; hereafter Breadmore) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Huang et al. (US 20200277195 A1; hereafter Huang).
Regarding claim 2, modified Slep discloses an additive manufacturing process as defined by Claim 1.
Modified Slep does not explicitly disclose the dielectric constant of the non-carbon nanotube-containing dielectric ink is between about 3 and about 4.5.
However, Huang teaches a dielectric ink ([0035, 0044]) having a dielectric constant between about 3 and about 4.5 ([0035]; dielectric constant of 5 or lower; 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) that can be used for inkjet printing ([0044]).
Slep and Huang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of inkjet printing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Slep with the teachings of Huang to provide the dielectric constant of the non-carbon nanotube-containing dielectric ink is between about 3 and about 4.5. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Doing so would allow for the manufacture of a greater variety of circuit board devices with precisely-controlled properties (Slep [0016]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Slep discloses an additive manufacturing process as defined by Claim 1.
Modified Slep does not explicitly disclose the dielectric constant of the carbon nanotube-containing dielectric ink is between about 3 and about 4.5.
However, Huang teaches a dielectric ink comprising carbon nanotubes ([0098]) having a dielectric constant between about 3 and about 4.5 ([0098], table 1) that can be used for inkjet printing ([0044]).
Slep and Huang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of inkjet printing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Slep with the teachings of Huang to provide the dielectric constant of the carbon nanotube-containing dielectric ink is between about 3 and about 4.5. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Doing so would allow for the manufacture of a greater variety of circuit board devices with precisely-controlled properties (Slep [0016]).
Claims 3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slep et al. (US 20170282450 A1; hereafter Slep), in view of Chi et al. (US 20150004756 A1; hereafter Chi) and Breadmore et al. (WO 2021062487 A1; hereafter Breadmore) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Chou et al. (US 20140035995 A1; hereafter Chou).
Regarding claim 3, modified Slep discloses an additive manufacturing process as defined by Claim 1.
Modified Slep does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the at least one layer of the non-carbon nanotube-containing dielectric ink is between about 5 microns and about 20 microns.
However, in the analogous art Chou teaches inkjet 3D printing ([0078]) of circuit boards ([0012]) with dielectric inks ([0248]) to form layers having a thickness between about 5 microns and about 20 microns ([0248]; typical thickness for aerosol jet deposition in one pass of the UV curable dielectric printing inks provided herein, generally had a thickness that was between at or about 0.1 microns and at or about 5 microns; 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).
Slep and Chou are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of inkjet printing circuit boards. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Slep with the teachings of Chou to provide the thickness of the at least one layer of the non-carbon nanotube-containing dielectric ink is between about 5 microns and about 20 microns. Doing so would provide good dimensional stability for the formed layers (Chou [0013]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Slep discloses an additive manufacturing process as defined by Claim 1.
Modified Slep does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the at least one layer of the carbon nanotube-containing dielectric ink is less than about 3 microns.
However, in the analogous art Chou teaches inkjet 3D printing ([0078]) of circuit boards ([0012]) with dielectric inks ([0248]) to form layers having a thickness less than about 3 microns ([0248]; typical thickness for aerosol jet deposition in one pass of the UV curable dielectric printing inks provided herein, generally had a thickness that was between at or about 0.1 microns and at or about 5 microns; 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).
Slep and Chou are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of inkjet printing circuit boards. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Slep with the teachings of Chou to provide the thickness of the at least one layer of the carbon nanotube-containing dielectric ink is less than about 3 microns. Doing so would provide good dimensional stability for the formed layers (Chou [0013]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Slep discloses an additive manufacturing process as defined by Claim 1.
Modified Slep does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the at least one layer of the carbon nanotube-containing dielectric ink is less than about 1 micron.
However, in the analogous art Chou teaches inkjet 3D printing ([0078]) of circuit boards ([0012]) with dielectric inks ([0248]) to form layers having a thickness less than about 1 micron ([0248]; typical thickness for aerosol jet deposition in one pass of the UV curable dielectric printing inks provided herein, generally had a thickness that was between at or about 0.1 microns and at or about 5 microns; 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).
Slep and Chou are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of inkjet printing circuit boards. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Slep with the teachings of Chou to provide the thickness of the at least one layer of the carbon nanotube-containing dielectric ink is less than about 1 micron. Doing so would provide good dimensional stability for the formed layers (Chou [0013]).
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 Vipul Malik whose telephone number is (571)272-0976. The examiner can normally be reached 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.
/VIPUL MALIK/Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights