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 .
Response to Amendment
Upon entry of the amendment filed on 12 August 2026, Claim(s) 1, 24 and 25 is/are amended; Claim(s) 26-30 is/are withdrawn; and Claim(s) 20 is/are cancelled. The currently pending claims are Claims 1-19 and 21-30.
Applicants’ remarks and amendments have been carefully considered; however, they are not found persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-19, 21, 22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (US-20140035995-A1).
Claims 1, 6-10, 14, 15, 18, 19 and 24: Chou discloses a composition for additive manufacturing comprising 10-90 % wt. of copper nanoparticles having a size of less than 1000 nm, 10-50 % wt. of a polar solvent having a BP greater than 100 0C, 0.05 to 5% wt. of an adhesion promoter and 0.2-20 % wt. of a dispersant (abs, ¶100-105, 131-142, 146, 152, 163-181, 226-235, examples and Fig 1 with accompanying text).
The Chou reference discloses the claimed invention with all the components and their respective loading amounts but does not disclose the composition with the claimed elements and loading amounts with enough specificity to anticipate the claimed invention. Nevertheless, given that Chou discloses copper nanoparticles, the polar solvent, the adhesion promoter and the dispersant within the claimed loading ranges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the chemical art at the time of the invention to utilize any of the taught components since Chou teaches each one and any of the taught loading amount percentages, including those presently claimed, to obtain a suitable composition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pursue the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success since the reference is directed to a similar field of endeavor. It is also noted that the fact that many components are disclosed would not have made any of them, such as the claimed components, less obvious. Here, Chou discloses each of the claimed components and overlapping loading amounts and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection and optimization of the claimed components would be repugnant to a skilled artisan. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 and MPEP 2144.
Regarding the claimed dynamic viscosity property, at the onset, if a prior art reference teaches the substantially identical structure/material/product, it would be reasonable that the same function and/or property would be imparted or exhibited. See MPEP 2112.01. In particular, Chou discloses the optimization of the viscosity “the inventive inks provided herein are not limited to this viscosity and could be useful at higher or lower viscosity depending on the printing apparatus and printing condition” (¶183) and is cognizant of high viscosity of “the range of 200 to 5,000 Pa·s (20,000 to 500,000 cP) in order to avoid the ink running on the substrate upon application” (¶7P) – thus it would have been well within the purview of a skilled artisan to arrive at the claimed viscosity via routine optimization since Chou is motivated to optimize the viscosity based on the printing apparatus and printing conditions.
Claims 2-5: Chou discloses PVP capped nanoparticles as shown in US Patent 7824466 – which discloses a MW of 3K-80K MW (examples and col 11 of US Patent 7824466).
Claims 11-15: Chou discloses the polar protic solvents such as ethylene glycol and the additional solvent (¶165 and examples).
Claims 16-19: Chou discloses various dispersants such as polymeric, phosphoric acid derivatives and/or acidic functionalized (¶137-146 and examples).
Claim 22: Chou discloses various adhesion promoters (¶173, 226, 278-281, 314-317 and examples).
Claim(s) 2-3, 5, 12-15, 22, 23 and 25 is/are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vanheusden (US-20060163744-A1).
Note: the additional rejection of claims 2-3, 5, 12-15 is made for compact prosecution purposes to address the pertinent limitations.
The Chou reference discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the feature of the adhesion promoter being PEK/PVP and the specific solvents. It is noted that Chou reference discloses adhesion promoters, PVP-capped metal nanoparticles and various polar solvents (see above) and the claim(s) call(s) for PEK/PVP as an adhesion promoter and specific polar solvents. In an analogous art, the Vanheusden reference discloses that PVP with a MW greater than 1K can be used both as a capping agent and an adhesion promoter for Cu nanoparticles and various solvents such as tetraethylene glycol and ethylene as art-recognized equivalents for various polar solvents (¶ 31,36, 42,59, 121-143, 173-196 and examples). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique and components of Vanheusden to the teachings of Chou would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the cited references shows the ability to apply such features into similar systems, methods and compositions for the benefit gain of enhancing the dispersibility and adhesion. See MPEP 2143. Further, it is noted that obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the substitution/implementation would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Chou reference discloses a viscosity of 1-2500 cP – which is outside the newly-claimed range (pg. 8 and 9).
The examiner respectfully notes that, at the onset, if a prior art reference teaches the substantially identical structure/material/product, it would be reasonable that the same function and/or property would be imparted or exhibited. See MPEP 2112.01. In particular, the examiner agrees that Chou discloses a preferred range of 1-2500 cP; however, Chou also discloses the optimization of the viscosity “the inventive inks provided herein are not limited to this viscosity and could be useful at higher or lower viscosity depending on the printing apparatus and printing condition” (¶183) and is cognizant of high viscosity of “preferably in the range of 200 to 5,000 Pa·s (20,000 to 500,000 cP) in order to avoid the ink running on the substrate upon application” (¶7P) – thus it would have been well within the purview of a skilled artisan to arrive at the claimed viscosity via routine optimization since Chou is motivated to optimize the viscosity based on the printing apparatus and printing conditions. Further, it is noted that all disclosures including nonpreferred and/or alternative embodiments should be considered and constitute prior art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TRI V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571.270.7026. 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.
/TRI V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
