DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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 Information Disclosure Statement, filed 30 July 2024 has been fully considered by the examiner. A signed copy is attached.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected, grounds follow.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges that instant application is a Continuation of Application 18/321,509 (now US patent # 12,186,992) and has been accorded the benefit of the original priority date.
Examiner notes that there seems to be a clerical issue with the Application Data Sheets filed in this application. Based on a review of the original 18/321,509, Examiner believes 18/321,509 is a divisional of 16/945,509, and is provisionally extending the benefit of the priority date of that application until the matter can be resolved.
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 11-20 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 11 recites the limitation "the identification of the material of the substrate" in Claim 11 line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that Claim 11 recites “identify a substrate” (line 4) and “the identification of the substrate” (line 6) but it is not clear if these are the same or different feature than “the identification of the material of the substrate.” One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore not be apprised of the scope of the claim and the claim is indefinite.
Claims 12-20 inherit the deficiency of their respective parent(s).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao et al., Chinese Patent Application CN 10-6475564 (citations to human translation provided courtesy USPTO-STIC in view of Mavuri US Pg-Pub 2021/0380832, further in view of Bonatsos et al., US Pg-Pub 2018/0126632
Regarding Claim 1, Chao teaches
A method ([0005]) of operating a metal drop ejecting apparatus (see figs. 2-3) comprising: using model data ([0005] “according to the layered data information of the part”) or user input data to identify a bulk metal material to be received and melted by a printhead in the metal drop ejecting apparatus; ([0005] “select the laser power, spot size and scanning speed according to the material properties of the metal droplet”)
using the model data or the user input data to identify […] a substrate onto which at least one ejector of the printhead ejects melted bulk metal drops; ([0005] “the computer deposits… at the appropriate temperature of the deposition substrate … by controlling the injection frequency of metal droplets and the speed of the mobile platform”)
using the identification of the bulk metal material and the identification of the material of the substrate to identify operational parameters for operating the metal drop ejecting apparatus; (see [0005] “select the laser power, spot size and scanning speed according to the material properties of the metal droplet”)
and operating the at least one ejector, at least one actuator, and the printhead using the identified operational parameters to melt the bulk material and eject melted bulk metal drops ([0005] “the computer deposits a single layer at the appropriate temperature of the deposition substrate point by point according to the scanning deposition path, by controlling the injection frequency of metal droplets and the speed of the mobile platform”)
Chao differs from the claimed invention in that:
Chao does not appear to clearly articulate: [operating to] form metal traces on the identified substrate.
Chao does not appear to clearly articulate identifying a material of a substrate
However, Mavuri teaches a metal drop ejecting apparatus (see Mavuri fig. 1, and [0114] “This is shown in FIG. 1. Inkjet printing the inkjet ink composition with an 80 μm nozzle size resulted in a diameter of single droplets on the paper of 90 μm which ejects the metal droplets in a substantially linear line (see fig. 2) to form conducting metal traces (composed of e.g., silver, see e.g. [0113] “The detachment of the PAA capping agent from the silver nanoparticles leads to coalescence of the particles and the formation of conductive traces on the glossy paper substrate.”)
Chao and Mavuri are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of metal droplet ejecting apparatus and contain overlapping structural and functional subject matter. Each ejects metal droplets from a print head onto a substrate; each controls the ejection parameters of the print head to form patterns with the ejecta.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Chao to print droplets which would coalesce into conductive metal traces, as suggested by Mavuri.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to simplify production of metal traces and lower cost, as suggested by Mavuri ([0002] “There are a wide range of advantages to printed electronics technologies… including simpler production, low cost, and an increased variety of substrates…”)
And, Bonatsos teaches a metal droplet additive printer (see fig. 1) which determines operational parameters such as duration and intensity of the melting energy pulse ([0058] “[0058] In addition, in the present embodiment the controller 20 is configured to select the temporal and intensity profiles of the melting energy pulses based on the thermal properties of the material being deposited and the substrate 46, so as to melt the underlying substrate 46 to a predetermined depth through the deposited material.”) by determining the type of material and composition of the substrate ([0077] “The duration and intensity of the melting energy pulses is controlled according to the determined type of material and the composition of the substrate 46 and the required depth of the underlying substrate 46 to be melted. )
Chao and Bonatsos are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of metal droplet ejecting apparatus and contain overlapping structural and functional subject matter. Each ejects metal droplets from a print head onto a substrate; each controls the ejection parameters of the print head to form patterns with the ejecta.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Chao to include determining the type of material and physical properties of the substrate to then set operational parameters accordingly, as suggested by Bonatsos.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to fuse, or not, the deposited material with the substrate (see Bonatsos [0058] “By melting both the substrate and the newly-deposited material, the material in the droplet can be fused to the substrate, improving the structural integrity of the finished article.” and [0059] “Alternatively, as will be explained later, it is not essential to melt the underlying substrate 46. For example, it may be desired to produce a movable or flexible layer that can slide over the substrate 46, in which case the material in the newly-deposited layer can be melted without fusing the material to the underlying substrate 46.)
Regarding Claim 11, this claim recites substantively the same subject matter in a method as claim 1, except for the omission of the identification of the material of the substrate (instead reciting “identification of the substrate” generally). Mutatis mutandis, this claim is likewise obvious over the teachings of Chao in view of Mavuri and Bonatsos for the same reasons articulated with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Chao in view of Gerdes and Bonatsos teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 1 and 11 respectively;
Chao further teaches:
(Claim 2 representative) operating the at least one ejector at a predetermined ejection frequency … corresponding to the identified substrate and the identified bulk metal to melt the bulk material and eject the melted bulk metal drops ([0005] “the computer deposits … by controlling the injection frequency of metal droplets and the speed of the mobile platform”)
Mavuri further teaches:
and overlap percentage corresponding to the identified substrate and the identified bulk metal to form the metal traces on the identified substrate. (Mavuri [0101] “Print pitch selected to be less than the diameter of a single droplet in order to overlap printed features and produce a continuous trace”)
Claim(s) 3-5 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao in view of Mavuri and Bonatsos, further in view of Stempfer et al., US Pg-Pub 2016/0318130.
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Chao, in view of Mavuri and Bonatsos teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 2 and 12, respectively;
Mavuri further teaches:
the predetermined overlap percentage is 30% overlap to 70% overlap. (Mavuri [0101] “the print pitch may be from about 10% to about 95% of the diameter of a droplet”)
Chao in view of Mavuri and Bonatsos differs from the claimed invention in that:
Neither reference clearly articulates wherein the predetermined ejection frequency is a range of 50 Hz to 110 Hz
However, Stempfer teaches a metal droplet ejecting apparatus (see fig. 9) which operates to expel droplets at a frequency range of 1 to 200hz, which overlaps the recited range. (Stempfer [0105] “for example, the wire melting current can be pulsed.” [0105] “the pulse frequency can be separately selected in a range of about… 1 to 200 hz…”)
Stempfer is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of 3D printing onto substrates and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities. Each reference melts metal to deposit onto a substrate, and each reference deposits said melted metal to form 3D structures.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the teachings of Chao and Mavuri to utilize the independent heating of the bulk metal and the substrate of Stempfer to increase droplet frequency with less risk of splatter.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the heat flux into the feed material with no risk of creating a “spray arc” which generates splatter. ([0106] “The use of a laser device to preheat the base material and form a preheated area, and a PTA torch to melt the feed wire of metallic material provides the advantage that it becomes possible to increase the heat supply to the feed of the metallic wire independently of the heat supply to the substrate such that it becomes possible to increase the heat flux into the feed material with no risk of creating a “spray arc” which generates spatter.”)
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, the combination of Chao, Mavuri, Bonatsos and Stempfer teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 3 and 13 respectively,
Stempfer further teaches:
operating the printhead at a predetermined temperature that corresponds to the identified bulk metal and the identified substrate. (Stempfer [0066] “the computer-readable program can contain appropriate software for monitoring and/or adjusting a parameter, such as temperature”, see also e.g. [0168] “the preheated area… can be monitored, e.g., for temperature, and ... the power of the… beam can be modulated in order to maintain the preheated area”)
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, the combination of Chao, Mavuri, Bonatsos, and Stempfer teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 3 and 13 respectively,
Stempfer further teaches:
the bulk metal is aluminum (see e.g., Stempfer [0112] “The metal wire can contain aluminum”)
And Mavuri further teaches:
the substrate is a semiconductor wafer or an oxide layer on a semiconductor wafer. (See e.g. [0104] “the substrate may be selected from glass, plastic paper, and semiconductors. In some examples the plastic substrate may be selected from polyethylene terephthalate and polyimide. In some examples, the semiconductors may be selected from silicon and polymeric semiconductors. In some examples, the polymeric semiconductors may comprise polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) or glass-reinforced epoxy laminate such as FR-4”).
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao in view of Mavuri, Bonatsos and Stempfer, further in view of Gerdes B. StarJet Printheads for Printing Molten Solder Jets at 320 °C and Molten Aluminum Alloy Droplets at 950 °C. (PhD thesis, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg; Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany: 2019.),
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Chao in view of Mavuri, Bonatsos, and Stempfer teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 3 and 13, respectively;
Mavuri further teaches:
the identified substrate is polyimide. (See e.g. [0104] “In some examples the plastic substrate may be selected from polyethylene terephthalate and polyimide”)
But none of the references clearly articulate:
the predetermined temperature is at least 900 °C
However, Gerdes teaches a metal drop ejecting apparatus (see page 39 “The StarJet printhead for molten solder was introduced by Lass et al. [89], and is adapted in this work for printing of molten solder jets. It is therefor mounted in a modified industrial printing platform ) for forming conductive metal traces (e.g. page 121 “The main goals of this thesis were the demonstration of actual applications for directly printing electrically functional metallizations and the development of a printhead for stable droplet generation at up to 1000 °C.”) which prints aluminium alloy droplets at temperatures of 950 °C (see e.g. Page 98, “The droplet temperature amounts to 950 °C when they are ejected.” )
Gerdes is analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of metal droplet ejecting apparatus and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. Each ejects metal droplets from a print head onto a substrate; each controls the ejection parameters of the print head to form patterns with the ejecta.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Stempfer to operate melting procedure such that the aluminium drop temperature is c. 950° C as suggested by Gerdes.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to account for the low heat capacity and subsequent rapid cooling which small droplets undergo, as suggested by Gerdes. (Page 72 “When considering the temperatures that are needed to print low melting solder it becomes clear that the printhead for molten aluminum must be heated significantly above the casting temperature. Due to their small volume, droplets exhibit a small heat capacity and are expected to solidify quickly as the thermal gradient of droplet and surrounding atmosphere is in the range of some hundred K. Consequently, the printhead, designed and built in this work, is designed to endure about 1000 °C.
Claim(s) 7-10 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao in view of Mavuri and Bonatsos, further in view of Trlica et al., 3-D printing of liquid metals for stretchable and flexible conductors (2014).
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Chao in view of Mavuri and Bonsatsos teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 1 and 11 respectively.
Mavuri further teaches:
operating the at least one ejector to eject successive melted bulk metal drops with an overlap percentage of at least 70% overlap (Mavuri [0101] “the print pitch may be from about 10% to about 95% of the diameter of a droplet”)
Chao in view of Mavuri and Bonatsos differs from the claimed invention in that:
the references do not appear to clearly articulate: rais[ing] a portion of one of the metal traces above the identified substrate and extend the portion of the one metal trace in a predetermined direction.
However, Trlica teaches overlapping droplets in order to raise a portion of a metal trace above the identified substrate and extend the portion of the metal trace in a predetermined direction. (See e.g., Trlica page 7, fig. 4 depicting a micrometer scale bridge of metal droplets which is raised above the substrate and extends in a linear direction perpendicular to another layer of metal droplets.”)
Trlica is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the other references and claimed invention of 3D micro-deposition onto substrates and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities; like the other references, Trlica forms metal structures by means of deposition of molten metal droplets onto substrates.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention could have modified the teachings of the combination of Chao and Mavuri to deposit drops which are raised above the surface of the substrate via overlap, as suggested by Trlica.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention could have been motivated to make this modification in order to generate 3-dimensional metal microstructures as suggested by Trlica (Page 7, 3.3. “Sequentially stacking an array of liquid droplets side-by-side or on top of each other produces liquid metal microstructures”).
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, Chao, in view of Mavuri, Bonatsos, and Trlica teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 7 and 17, respectively;
Trlica further teaches:
operating the at least one ejector to raise the portion of the one metal trace to a position where the raised portion avoids another one of the metal traces on the identified substrate. (Page 7, fig. 4, lower right; a bridge of droplets avoids another line of droplets below it on the substrate.)
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Chao, in view of Mavuri, Bonatsos, and Trlica teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 7 and 17,
Trlica further teaches:
operating the at least one ejector to eject melted bulk metal drops to connect raised portions of at least two separate metal traces to form a portion of one of the metal traces that is above a surface of the identified substrate. (See e.g., fig. 4, depicting vertical stacks of multiple droplets that are then joined together at a subsequent higher level by a connecting drop; as well as depicting a bridge structure in the lower right figure.)
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, Chao, in view of Mavuri, Bonatsos and Trlica teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 17,
Mavuri further teaches:
operating the at least one ejector to eject melted bulk metal drops to connect the raised portion of the one metal trace to an electronic component lead on the identified substrate. (Mavuri [0102] “in some examples, the conductive traces produced by the method of printing an inkjet ink composition form part of a device selected from a flexible battery; an electro-optic device; a display; an organic photovoltaic device; a logic and memory component, such as a thin film transistor; a sensor; and a radio frequency identification device.”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA T SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5591. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday through Friday.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/J.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights