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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/22/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 9, 17-19 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20180120296 A), in view of Hashi et al. (WO 2018235590 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 22-23
Lee discloses a composition comprising 30 to 50 wt % conductive metal nanoparticles, 40 to 60 wt % of a solvent containing glycerol (i.e. second non-aqueous polar protic solvent), and 2 to 10 wt % of a binder (claim 1).
Lee discloses that the solvent can be a 4:1 mixture of glycerol and ethylene glycol (i.e., first non-aqueous polar protic solvent) (example 2), making the glycerol present in an amount of greater than 11 wt %.
Lee does not disclose the presence of water, methanol, ethanol, 1-propanol or 2-propanol or any other solvents in example 2.
Although, Lee, does not disclose the use of propylene glycol, Lee does disclose the use of ethylene glycol. However, Hashi discloses that as a solvent for a conductive ink that ethylene glycol and propylene glycol are functionally equivalent (solvents). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add to the teachings of Lee by substituting propylene glycol for ethylene glycol, with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful ink, as suggested by Hashi.
The sheet resistance is a property of the ink, and when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § § 2112- 2112.02.
Regarding claims 17-19
Lee discloses the use of silver nanoparticles having a size of about 50 nm (example 1).
Regarding claims 24-25
Lee discloses that the metal nanoparticles may be gold or copper (claim 3).
Although, Lee, does not disclose the use of propylene glycol, Lee does disclose the use of ethylene glycol. However, Hashi discloses that as a solvent for a conductive ink that ethylene glycol and propylene glycol are functionally equivalent (solvents). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add to the teachings of Lee by substituting propylene glycol for ethylene glycol, with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful ink, as suggested by Hashi.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20180120296 A), in view of Hashi et al. (WO 2018235590 A1), as applied to claims 1, 9, 17-19 and 22-25 above, in view of Hu et al. (CN-107446413-A).
Regarding claim 28
Lee discloses the use of polyvinylpyrrolidone (claims) but does not disclose the viscosity grade thereof. However, Hu also directed to conductive inks discloses that the K grade of pyrrolidone is preferably PVP K-30 (Equivalent Abstract). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention toad to the teachings of Lee by using K-30 polyvinylpyrrolidone, with a reasonable expectation of success in forming a useful conductive ink, as suggested by Hu.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue against the prior art ejections.
Applicants argue that the references do not teach the sheet resistance. While this may be true it is not persuasive as this is a property of the compositions, and it cannot be determined by examiner if the composition of the reference(s) would meet this limitation, this shifting the burden to the applicants.
Applicants argue that Lee and Hashi fail to disclose the K grade of the polyvinylpyrrolidone. While this may be true it is not persuasive as a new reference is brought into show what he K grade of the polyvinylpyrrolidone is.
The remaining arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the same reasons given above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES E MCDONOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-10.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
JAMES E. MCDONOUGH
Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/JAMES E MCDONOUGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
