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
Claims 15-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/24/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 06/24/2026 is acknowledged. This is not found persuasive because Group I (Claims 1-14 are apparatus claims and Group II (Claims 15-20) are method claims. The two groups are given different patentable weight in terms of patentability.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang, (US 20190070845) in view of CZINKOTA, (US 2022014397).
Regarding Claim 1, Chang discloses a printhead for producing nanoparticles, comprising: a reaction module comprising a mixing chamber (Figure 1, mixer-12, [0046], [0116]), wherein one or more inlets open into the mixing chamber (Figure1, printhead-13 , [0016]), wherein a nozzle is coupled to the mixing chamber ([0017]). Chang didn’t particularly disclose that an optics module extending into the reaction module. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, CZINKOTA discloses, an optical module with the nozzle (Figure 2, nozzle-102, [0054]) and wherein the optics module comprises a lens within a lumen/passage (Figure 2, [0051], opening-116 of the tubular member-104). Combining Chang’s chamber with the CZINKOTA’s optical module this limitation wherein the lumen opens into the mixing chamber is met.
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Chang with that of CZINKOTA ’s optical module directly integrated into the printhead for the purpose of high precision focus of the emitted light into the chamber.
Regarding Claim 2 Chang/CZINKOTA discloses, wherein the optics module is seated within a receptacle at a top portion of the reaction module (combining the reaction module chamber of Chang with the optics module of CZINKOTA this limitation is met). CZINKOTA discloses wherein a first opening of the lumen is configured as an optical port to receive an optical fiber or a light source module (Figure 2, [0056], optical fibre-103B), and wherein the optical fiber or the light source module are affixed to the optics module (Figure 2, [0056], optical fibers-103b).
Regarding Claim 3 CZINKOTA discloses wherein the optical fiber or the light source module is aligned optically to the lens (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 4 CHANG/CZINKOTA discloses wherein a second opening of the lumen opens into the mixing chamber (combining the reaction module chamber of Chang with the optics module of CZINKOTA; CZINKOTA discloses wherein the second opening with optical fibers-228 ), and wherein the lens is disposed within the lumen proximal to the second opening, proximal to the mixing chamber (the optical fibers-228 enter through a second opening into the lumen and guided by light source which is a lens as taught by CZINKOTA ).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang, (US 20190070845) in view of CZINKOTA, (US 2022014397) in view of Dogru US (20210213562).
Regarding Claim 6 CHANG/CZINKOTA disclose an optical module with the nozzle wherein the optics module comprises with the lens as the light source (Figure 2, light source/lens-103B), but didn’t disclose that wherein the lens is a Powell lens, an axicon lens, a cylindrical lens, an aspherical lens. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art Dogru discloses aspherical lens are used ([0024]).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Chang with that of CZINKOTA ’s optical module further modified with Dogru’s aspherical lens for the purpose of reduced distortion.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang, (US 20190070845) in view of CZINKOTA, (US 2022014397) in view of Klimczak, (US 20220072784)
Regarding Claim 7 , Chang/CZINKOTA disclose a mixing chamber with optical module but did not specifically disclose that an optical furnace, wherein the optical furnace is between the mixing chamber and the nozzle. In the related field of art, KLIMCZAK discloses optical furnace/heater (Figure 1, heater-105, [0025]). In Chang the the printhead/nozzle-13 is attached with the mixer-12 (Figure 1). Chang modified with CZINKOTA discloses the optical module has the opening onto the chamber. Therfore, Chang/CZINKOTA and combining with Klimczak the optical furnace/heater-105, attached with printhead-104 will be between the mixing chamber and the nozzle.
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Chang with that of CZINKOTA ’s optical module further modified with KILMCZAK’s targeted heat source for the purpose of evenly distribution while fusing of the materials ([0031]).
Regarding Claim 8-9, KILMCZAK’s discloses wherein the optical furnace/heater comprises one or more optical couplers within a sidewall surrounding the optical furnace and the one or more optical couplers comprise a collimating lens (Figure 4, [0031], claim 5).
Claim(s) 5, 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang, (US 20190070845) in view of CZINKOTA, (US 2022014397) in view of Lei (US 20210260826)
Regarding Claim 5 Chang discloses printhead for producing nanoparticles, comprising: a reaction module comprising a mixing chamber, wherein one or more inlets open into the mixing chamber (Figure 1) but did not disclose one or more second inlets open into the lumen. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Lei discloses the inlet-182 open into the optical path (Figure 2, lens-156, [0025], [0048]).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Chang’s/ CZINKOTA teaching with that of Lei’s teaching of additional inlet for the purpose of providing gas to maintain pressure ([0025])
However, it didn’t disclose that inlets are disposed above the lens. Though shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975). The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious. It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.
Regarding Claim 10 Chang discloses nanoparticle printer, comprising: a printhead, comprising: a reaction module comprising a mixing chamber, wherein one or more inlets are disposed within a wall of the reaction module and are coupled with the mixing chamber ( Figure 1, mixer-12, [0046], [0116]), wherein one or more inlets open into the mixing chamber (Figure1), wherein a nozzle is coupled to the mixing chamber ([0017]). Chang didn’t particularly disclose that an optics module extending into the reaction module. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, CZINKOTA and an optics module affixed to the reaction module, wherein the optics module comprises a lens within a lumen ([0054]) and wherein the optics module comprises a lens within a lumen/passage), wherein the lumen extends from a first opening through a first portion of the optics module to a second opening through a second portion of the optics module, wherein the second portion is opposite the first portion; a light source aligned to the lens (Figure 2, nozzle-102, [0051], opening-116 of the tubular member-104).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Chang with that of CZINKOTA ’s optical module directly integrated into the printhead for the purpose of high precision focus of the emitted light into the chamber.
The above combination didn’t particularly disclose that at least one conduit coupled to the one or more inlets, wherein the at least one conduit is coupled to a gas source, wherein the gas source comprises at least one nanoparticle precursor substance. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Lei discloses the inlet-182 open into the optical path (Figure 2, lens-156, [0025], [0048] gas conduit-182 with precursor as Ar).
Regarding Claim 11 CZINKOTA discloses wherein an optical fiber is coupled to the light source (Figure 2, light source-103a, optical fibers-103b, and wherein the optical fiber extends through the first opening into the lumen of the optics module and is optically aligned to the lens (Figure 2, [0056], optical fibers-103b).
Regarding Claim 12 Chang/CZINKOTA discloses wherein at least one of the one or more inlets is disposed within the optics module (combining the reaction module chamber of Chang with the optics module of CZINKOTA this limitation is met). Lei discloses wherein at least one of the one or more inlets is coupled to a carrier gas source (Figure 1, inlet-182).
Regarding Claim 13 CZINKOTA discloses, wherein the light source is attached to the optics module over the first opening of the lumen (Figure 2, input port to the lumen/passage ), wherein the light source is optically aligned to the lens (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 14 CZINKOTA discloses, wherein the light source comprises a semiconductor laser device (Figure 2, [0017], laser light could be used).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBJANI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8019. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 pm.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/DEBJANI ROY/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights