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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-3 and 5-18 are pending. Claims 10-14 are withdrawn. Claims 1-3, 5-9 and 15-18 are presented for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/1/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-9 and 15-19 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.
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.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (“2D Single-Crystalline Copper Nanoplates as a Conductive Filler for Electronic Ink Applications”) in view of Xu et al. (CN 102009037, of which reference is made to the provided English machine translation)
I. Regarding claims 1, 3 and 9, Lee teaches a method comprising: preparing a copper nanoplate solution containing a solvent in which the copper nanoplate is dispersed (abstract and Section 4); coating the metal nanoplate solution on a substrate (Section 4); performing a heat treatment on the coated substrate which will yield a copper electrode which will also act as an electromagnetic wave shielding layer (Section 4) having a thickness of 0.87 microns (below Figure 4 in Section 2). Lee fails to teach forming a polymer surface protective layer that does not cause metal corrosion over the wave shielding layer, wherein the polymer is selected from the group as claimed and having a thickness of 2-40 microns.
However, Xu teaches the application of a paint surface protective layer over metal (abstract), such as copper electrodes (0051) to provide corrosion protection (0056), wherein the paint is applied to a thickness of 25-40 microns (0051). Xu teaches the paint comprising polyurethane polymer (0031). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s process by additionally forming a polymer surface protective layer over Lee’s copper electrode as disclosed by Xu. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Xu teaches that the coating provides protection against copper corrosion (see above), which will be beneficial for Lee’s copper electrode.
II. Regarding claims 2 and 7, Lee in view of Xu teach all the limitations of claim 1, including performing a heat treatment at 300 ºC (Lee at Section 4), but fail to explicitly teach the solution including 0.01 to 80 parts by weight of the copper nanoplate and the heating performed at 100-250 ºC. However, adjusting the amount of nanoplate and the temperature will alter the efficiency of the process as well as the properties of the final copper nanoplate film. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In reHoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.).
III. Regarding claims 5 and 6, Lee in view of Xu teach all the limitations of claim 1, but fail to teach the loading amount and the amount and number of times the coating solution is applied. However, adjusting the loading amount and the amount and coating times are result-effective variables as adjusting these variables will alter the final thickness and the resultant shielding properties of the completed shielding layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
2. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Xu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Robinson et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2007/0163637).
Regarding claim 8, Lee in view of Xu teach all the limitations of claim 1 (see above), but fail to teach a reduction process. However, Robinson teaches a similar process of applying metal nanoplates (abstract and claim 1), wherein the metal may be copper (0059), to a substrate and then annealing (0072). Robinson further states that the process can include an additional step of chemical reduction after forming the coating on the substrate (0071). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Xu’s process by additionally performing a chemical reduction step after coating as disclosed by Robinson. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Robinson teaches that this can yield an optimized process (0071).
3. Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 7, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (“Enhanced Electric and Mechanical Properties of Silver Nanoplatelet-Based Conductive Features Direct Printed on a Flexible Substrate”, hereinafter Lee2) in view of Hwang et al. (“Highly robust Ag nanowire flexible transparent electrode with UV-curable polyurethane-based overcoating layer”).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 15 and 16, Lee2 teaches a process for preparing a conductive silver feature (abstract) comprising: preparing a silver nanoplate solution containing a solvent in which silver nanoplate is dispersed (Experimental Section) at 20 wt% (Experimental Section); and coating the metal nanoplate solution on a substrate (Experimental Section) which will inherently form a substrate coated with an electromagnetic shielding layer and the solution does not include a polymer resin (Experimental Section); and then performing an annealing heat treatment at a temperature of 200 ºC (Experimental Section). Lee2 fails to teach forming a surface protective layer of polymer as claimed with a thickness as claimed.
However, Hwang teaches forming a surface protective layer of a polyurethane (abstract and title) with a thickness of 5 microns over silver conductive features (Section 2.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee2’s process by additionally forming a polyurethane protective layer at a thickness of 5 microns over Lee2’s conductive silver feature. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Hwang teaches that the polyurethane coating provides remarkably enhanced mechanical stability and showed no degradation in electric or optical properties after being scratched (abstract).
4. Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee2 in view of Hwang as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Hamacher et al. (“Development of a Gold Nanoparticle Conductive Ink with a Relatively Low Sintering Temperature”) and Ah et al. (KR 2006-0009735, reference is made to U.S. PGPUB 2006/0021468 as an English equivalent) as evidenced by Kim et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2011/0262702).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Lee2 in view of Hwang teach all the limitations of claim 15 (see above), but fail to teach the metal nanoplate is polycrystalline and formed by a hydrothermal synthesis in the presence of a metal growth agent as claimed.
However, Hamacher teaches that gold nanoparticles can be substituted for silver nanoparticles in conductive ink applications (Introduction). Additionally, Ah teaches the formation of gold nanoplates (abstract) which are polycrystalline (see Kim at 0010 which discloses that the gold nanoplates of KR 2006-0009735 are polycrystalline) by a hydrothermal process using HAuCl4 which is a chlorine compound (0012). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute polycrystalline gold nanoplates formed as disclosed by Ah for the silver nanoplates of Lee2 in view of Hwang. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Hamacher teaches that gold has advantages over silver of being more resistant to oxidation (Introduction) and the nanoplates can be produced at low cost and high yields (see Ah at abstract).
Conclusion
Claims 1-3 and 5-18 are pending.
Claims 10-14 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-3, 5-9 and 15-18 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
December 5, 2025 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717