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
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.
Claim 1, 9, 17-19 and 22-25 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).
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.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue against the 102 prior art rejections.
Applicants’ amendments to the claims overcome the 102 rejection and it has been withdrawn.
Applicants argue against the 103 rejection.
Applicants argue that water, methanol, ethanol tend to degrade the ink. However, claim 1 allows for these components as long as they are below 10 % by volume. Further, from the list of solvents in Hashi one skilled in the art would expect propylene glycol to be closer to glycerin that ethanol or methanol. Further, still applicants have demonstrated no evidence of new or unexpected results for the use of propylene glycol over glycerin. Additionally, one skilled in the art could select the solvents based on the desired viscosity and drying speed which can be controlled by solvent selection (see paras 0164-0166). Furthermore, Hashi discloses that the preferred solvent has a boiling point above 100 C (para 0168), which would exclude both methanol and ethanol as the organic solvent.
Applicants argue that they get unexpected results in Table 2. This is not persuasive because the example using ethylene glycol and glycerol (as does the reference of Lee) gets better results than using propylene glycol and glycerol (ex.s 2-5). Further, it cannot be discerned what is making the better results in examples 1 and 6. Further still, the results are not fully commensurate with the scope of the claimed invention.
The remaining arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the same reasons given above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 on 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
Prosecution Insights