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 .
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.
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) 17-25, 28-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isaacs [Synthesis of Tetraoctylammonium-protected gold nanoparticles with improved stability] in view of Kunitake [JP2007069270], Suh [US 20160266104], Kim [US 20150174613], Joseph [US 20090162946], Anders [US 20030157325] and Eitan [US 20190153121] and Cho [US 20190279782] and Kodas [US 20030175411].
Claims 17, 28, 31: Isaacs teaches a method for preparing metal nanoparticles (gold nanoparticles) [title], by mixing a solution of tetraoctylammonium bromide (TOABr) in a non-polar solvent ((Oct)4NBr in toluene) with a solution of a metal precursor in a polar solvent (HAuCl4 in H2O) to prepare a mixture [pg 5689, col 2, Exp. Sect.]; adding a thiosulfate salt (Na2S2O3) to the mixture [pg 5689, col 2, Exp. Sect.] and separating the non-polar solvent layer (removal of the aqueous layer) [pg 5690, col 1] and adding a reducing agent thereto (addition of NaBH4) [pg 5690, col 1]. Isaacs further teaches the ToABr to gold precursor is in a range of 2:1 (2mmol of (Oct)4NBr to 1.mmol of HAuCl4)[ [pg 5689, col 2, Exp. Sect.]. However, Isaacs does not appear to teach the metal precursor is a silver precursor. However, Isaacs does not appear to teach the metal precursor is a silver precursor. Kunitake is provided.
Kunitake, directed to forming inorganic nanoparticles [abs] using reducing agent pg 6, teaches examples of metal salts that could be used to form metal nanoparticles, such as gold salts and silver salts [pg 6]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the gold precursor of Isaacs with a silver precursor since Kunitake teaches silver precursor salts are also capable of being reduced and precipitated as metal nanoparticles [pg 6-7] using a similar solution process [pg 6]. Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art would find silver salt precursor as an operable substitute.
Although the prior art does not explicitly teach that the silver thiosulfate anions are phase transferred to the non-polar solvent layer, since the prior art teaches using the same materials (e.g. a mixture of TOABr in a non-polar solvent with a solution of silver precursor in a polar solvent and adding thiosulfate salt to the mixture) and Isaacs teaches forming a metal-thiosulfate [pg 7, col 1] wherein thiosulfate anions are formed [pg 5691 col 2], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the metal thiosulfate anions such as silver thiosulfate anions would be phase transferred to the non-polar solvent layer to naturally occur by using the same materials with the same process. Isaacs further teaches removing the non-polar solvent layer [pg 7, col 1], which would naturally contain the phase transfer silver thiosulfate anions. Although Issacs using a reducing agent such as sodium borohydride (NaBH4), the prior art does not teach the specific reducing agent species as claimed. Suh is provided.
Suh teaches that reducing agents such as sodium borohydride and sodium ascorbate can be used [0045]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use sodium ascorbate as a reducing agent since Suh teaches such specie is another operable reducing agents for forming nanoparticles.
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach d) immersing a substrate in the dispersion of the silver nanoparticles in the non-polar solvent to form a particle layer on the substrate; and e) immersing the substrate formed with the particle layer in a dispersion of a monomolecular material having amine groups in an organic solvent to form a linker layer on the particle layer. Kim and Joseph are provided.
Kim teaches a method form forming a nanostructure [abstract] by dissolving linkers in a solvent and depositing the material onto substrate by, for example, immersion [0140]. Kim further teaches the solvent can be any solvent that dissolve the linkers [0058]. Kim further teaches the linkers can be a monomolecular material [0021] which can comprise amine groups [0024]. Kim further teaches the linker layer and nanoparticle layer can be stacked alternately and repeatedly [0130]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that if the linker layer and nanoparticle layer are alternately stacked and repeated, at some point the linker layer would be deposited on the nanoparticle layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use linking layer to attach the particles to a substrate as taught by Kim to stably fix the nanoparticles onto the substrate [0077]. Although Kim does not explicitly teach immersing the substrate with the dispersion of nanoparticles, Joseph teaches it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to immerse a substrate in the particle dispersion as another operable way to form a nanoparticle film on a substrate [abstract; 0023; 0064]. Joseph also teaches operable solvents include organic solvents for linkers [0016-0017]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an organic solvent for dissolving the linking material since Joseph teaches such solvents are operable for dissolving linking material. Kim also teaches a surface layer having functional group [0039; Fig. 1a], the prior art does not appear to teach: d) forming a base layer on a substrate by immersing the substrate in a dispersion of polyethyleneimine (PEI) and ethanol. Anders and Eitan are provided.
Anders teaches a multilayer nanoparticle thin film assembly, wherein the substrate is immersed in a dispersion of PEI and chloroform; and a particle layer is assembled on the functionalized substrate [0035; Fig. 2]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a base layer using a solution of PEI by immersing the substrate since Anders teaches the PEI layer increases assembly strength of the nanoparticle thereon [0028]. However, Anders does not appear to teach using a ethanol as the solvent in the dispersion. Eitan is provided.
Eitan teaches that ethanol is an obvious polar solvent variant of chloroform [0302]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use ethanol instead of chloroform since Eitan teaches either solvents are obvious variants.
However, the prior art does not appear to teach the monomolecular material having the amine groups is tris2-aminoethylamine (TREN). Cho is provided.
Cho teaches forming a flexible electrode by forming a bonding layer comprising amino group onto the substrate and forming a nanoparticle coating [abstract]. Cho further teaches the amino group can be tris2-aminoethylamine (TREN) [0010] and can be deposited by immersion [0015] and further deposited onto the nanoparticle coating [fig. 4]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use tris2-aminoethylamine since Cho teaches such compound has improved bonding strength for interlayers of nanoparticles [0044-0045].
However, the prior art does not explicitly teach the silver precursor is selected from the silver perchlorate, silver chlorate, silver carbonate, silver sulfate, silver chloride, silver bromide, silver fluoride and mixture thereof. Kodas is provided.
Kodas teaches examples of silver precursors that can be used in low viscosity compositions include silver carbonate or silver fluoride [0083; table 1, 0086]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use silver carbonate or silver fluoride as the silver precursors since Kodas teaches these compounds are well known and operable for use in low viscosity composition such as solutions.
Claim 18: Isaacs teaches the non-polar solvent is toluene [pg 5689, col 2, Exp. Sect.].
Claims 19 and 29: Isaacs further teaches the ToABr to gold precursor is in a range of 2:1 (2mmol of (Oct)4NBr to 1.mmol of HAuCl4)[ [pg 5689, col 2, Exp. Sect.].
Claims 20 and 30: again by using the same materials with the same process, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the silver thiosulfate anions are formed by anion substitution of bromide ions by thiosulfate ions and are phase transferred to the non-polar solvent layer. Isaacs further teaches the introduction of the thiosulfate counteranions in place of bromide anions [pg 5689, col 2].
Claim 21: Kunitake teaches the silver precursor can be silver nitrate and etc. [pg 6].
Claims 22 and 32: Isaacs teaches the polar solvent is water [pg 5689, col 2, Exp. Sect.].
Claims 23 and 33: Isaacs teaches the thiosulfate salt is sodium thiosulfate [pg 5689, col 2, Exp. Sect].
Claims 24 and 34: Isaacs teaches the reducing agent can be sodium borohydride [pg 5690, col 1].
Claims 25 and 35: Kim teaches the substrate may be plastic substrate [0015].
Claim(s) 26-27, 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isaacs in view of Kunitake, Suh, Kim, Joseph, Anders, Eitan, Cho and Kodas as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Caruso [US 20090047517].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach treating the substrate with an RCA solution. Caruso is provided.
Claims 26 and 36: Caruso teaches immersing the substrate in a RCA solution (water, ammonia, hydrogen peroxide) to clean the surface prior to processing [0135]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform this RCA cleaning process so as to fully clean the substrate surface for processing [0135].
Claims 27 and 37: Caruso teaches the RCA solution comprises water, hydrogen and ammonia [0135], where Caruso teaches water can exist as distilled H2O [0144].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/07/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s arguments that Isaacs is for synthesizing gold nanoparticles only, it is argued that although Isaacs exemplifies producing gold nanoparticles, such method would not preclude the substitution of another noble metal, such as silver, particularly since Kunitake teaches silver salts and gold salts are both materials that can be used to produce metal nanoparticles via solution [page 6-7]. As for applicant’s arguments that the claims require the thiosulfate slat before phase separation to form the anionic silver thiosulfate complex, it is argued that applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to show that the teachings of the prior art fails to teach the claimed invention, which uses the same materials and solution method. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See MPEP 2145. As for applicant’s arguments of Isaacs and Kunitake being improperly combined, since Kunitake would change the principle of operation of Isaacs, it is argued that Isaacs does not explicitly exclude any other noble precursors for forming the metal nanoparticles, but rather illustrate an example using gold precursor. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. (See MPEP 2123.II.).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument in light of Kodas.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDY C LOUIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 1:00PM to 4:00PM PT.
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, Timothy Meeks can be reached on (571)272-1423. 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.
/MANDY C LOUIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights