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 claims 1-11 in the reply filed on November 17th, 2025, is acknowledged. Claims 12-22 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 17th, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed September 20th, 2024, fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the crossed out references referred to therein have not been considered.
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.
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 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) and evidenced by Huang et al. (US 20200277195 A1; hereafter Huang).
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]; first curable liquid) and at least one layer of a non-carbon nanotube-containing ink ([0009]; second curable liquid comprising 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) to form the at least one layer of the non-carbon nanotube-containing ink 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) to form the at least one layer of the carbon nanotube-containing ink 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).
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, 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]).
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]).
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) 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) 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
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.
/V.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754