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 .
The amendment filed 1/28/2026 has been entered. Claims 4-6 and 9 have been canceled. Claims 1-3, 7-8, and 10-24 are pending in the application. Claims 12-20 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed to non-elected species and invention. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 2, “the at least one functional group from the one or more first portions” should read “the at least one first functional group from the one or more first portions” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10-11, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 has been amended to recite, “wherein the capsule is formed with at least one third functional group and provided with a third linker, wherein the at least one third functional group allows multiple capsules to be linked to each other by means of the at least one third functional group thus forming a network structure or intra-crosslinking” (emphasis added), however, it is unclear whether the limitation is actually requiring the conductive multi-component system to include a “network structure or intra-crosslinking” of “multiple” capsules or merely requiring that the third functional group “allows” or is capable of forming a network structure or intra-crosslinking of a plurality of capsules, particularly given that the currently claimed multi-component system may include only one capsule (i.e., “one or more first portions…within a capsule” – emphasis added) and in looking to the specification, the paragraph bridging pages 13-14 recites, “the third functional group each having at least one protective group, so that only correspondingly functionalized portions of substance of the first substance can bind to the portions of substance of the first substance, and the method further comprising at least the step that the protective groups initially present are only removed when the first portions of substance are to be linked to one another by means of the third functional groups. This prevents the portions of substance, in particular capsules, of the first substance (i.e. the first portions of substance) from already and preferably combining with further portions of substance of the first substance. The protective groups can be removed after being introduced into gas, low viscosity, liquid, high viscosity, or solid phase, whereby intra-crosslinking takes place.” Hence, one having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention and could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement.
Dependent claims 2-3, 7-8, 10-11, and 21-24 do not remedy the above and hence are indefinite for the same reasons, wherein with respect to dependent claim 24, it is further noted that although the claim recites, “comprising first and second capsules that are inter-crosslinked and wherein the third functional groups react via a covalent bond” on lines 2-3, it is unclear whether the “first and second capsules” refer to “the capsule” (singular) as recited in claim 1 within which the one or more first portions of the first substance are arranged, and whether said first and second capsules are actually inter-crosslinked via third functional groups thereof.
Note: If Applicant’s intent is to claim a multi-component system comprising a plurality of said capsules within which said one or more first portions of the first substance are arranged, wherein each of said capsules is formed with at least one third functional group provided with a third linker, and said capsules “are linked” to each other by means of the third functional groups forming a network structure or intra-crosslinking of said capsules, then the Examiner suggests that the Applicant clearly state “wherein the multi-component system comprises a plurality of said capsules” or similar language with similar linker/linked wording as above (e.g., “are linked” as in the deleted text of amended claim 1). If Applicant’s intent, on the other hand, is to claim a multi-component system comprising a plurality of capsules including said (first) capsules within which one or more first portions of the first substance are arranged, wherein each of said plurality of capsules is formed with at least one third functional group provided with a third linker, and said plurality of capsules are linked and formed into a network structure or intra-crosslinking by means of said third functional groups, e.g., different from the above in that the network may be formed from linked capsules including additional or “second” capsules other than the “first” capsules (e.g., similar to the first and second capsules of instant claim 24), then the Examiner suggests that the Applicant utilize similar language as above with respect to a plurality of capsules including said “first” capsules and positively recite that the capsules “are linked”. Alternatively, if Applicant’s intent in claim 1 is as recited in the paragraph bridging pages 13-14 wherein the capsules are not actually linked to each other but are capable of being linked via the third functional groups, then the Examiner suggests utilizing similar language as recited in the paragraph bridging pages 13-14 and/or changing “allows multiple capsules to be linked” to “can allow multiple capsules to be linked” or “can bind multiple capsules” or similar language and/or changing “thus forming” to “to form” or similar language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10-11, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaiszik (US2012/0067615A1), taken alone or in further view of Ogawa (JP2009038131A), for generally the reasons recited in the office action dated 12/27/2024 and incorporated herein by reference, wherein the Examiner notes that as currently recited, the claimed invention does not require a plurality of capsules or multiple capsules of said first substance portions to be linked to each other by means of the third functional group(s) (in light of the discussion above with respect to the lack of clarity of the instant claims); and further notes that the first and/or second linker(s) may be direct bonds given that the present specification clearly recites that a “linker can be any form of connection between a portion of substance and a functional group” or “may also be any type of direct connection between a portion of substance and/or a capsule and/or a substrate and a functional group” (see page 5, lines 11-14 of the specification as filed); that one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would clearly understand and/or reasonably expect the metallic surfaces of the conductive microparticles and the solid conductor of Blaiszik to have some degree of oxide and/or hydroxyl groups thereon (e.g., due to natural oxidation of metals as is well established in the art, particularly given that Blaiszik generally discusses formation of a metal oxide passivation layer in Paragraph 0053, and the presence of water/moisture in the material, e.g., as a solvent) that would be capable of hydrogen bonding (e.g., “a predefined interaction”) upon release of the conductive microparticles from the ruptured capsules; and that the capsule wall material taught by Blaiszik may have functional groups thereon such that the capsules are capable of being linked to each other “by means” of said functional groups such as via a silane coupling agent, given that Blaiszik clearly teaches that a silane coupling agent can be utilized to promote adhesion between the capsules and the solid polymer matrix, and/or between the solid polymer matrix and the particles (Paragraphs 0040 and 0046), and hence, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1-3, 7-8, 10-11, and 21-23 would have been obvious over the teachings of Blaiszik taken alone or in further view of Ogawa for generally the reasons of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/28/2026 are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above. With respect to Applicant’s prior arguments filed 6/24/2025 over Blaiszik taken alone or in further view of Ogawa (see pages 10-12 of the response filed 6/24/2025), the Applicant first argues that there is allegedly no support for the Examiner’s interpretation that the conductive particles of Blaiszik would naturally have hydroxyl functional groups on the surface and that such functional groups may react with second functional groups provided on the substrate (see first full paragraph on page 11). The Applicant also argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
486
573
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Finally, the Applicant argues on page 12 of the response that “the subject matter of amended claim 1 is also further distinguished from the art in that the first portions are formed with at least one third functional group (R) and are provided with a third linker (L3), wherein the first portions of substances are linked to each other by means of the third functional group” as shown in, for example, Figs. 6 and 8; and that neither Blaiszik nor Ogawa alone or in combination “point to such subject matter or how to achieve such intra-crosslinking.” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments and first notes that amended claim 1 as currently recited does not require the first portions of substances to be linked and given that amended claim 1 also does not require a plurality of capsules nor multiple capsules that are linked, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the “are linked” limitation are not persuasive. With respect to Applicant’s arguments that a “single bond may not be a linker in the sense of the present disclosure”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and again refers to page 5 of the specification as filed as noted above, and given that the instant claims do not require any particular “linker” nor exclude a single bond wherein the length/distance of a single bond may vary depending upon the linked atoms such that specifying a “distance” as in instant claim 3 does not exclude a single bond, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the “linker” or “linkers” are not persuasive. Lastly, with respect to Applicant’s arguments that there is allegedly no support for the Examiner’s interpretation that the conductive particles of Blaiszik would naturally have hydroxyl functional groups on the surface and that such functional groups may react with second functional groups provided on the substrate, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Blaiszik broadly refers to a metal oxide passivation layer readily formed via oxidation of metal in the presence of oxygen (Paragraph 0053), and given that such an oxide layer on a metallic surface would have some degree of hydroxyl groups thereon due to reaction of water molecules, whether via humidity, moisture, and/or water as a solvent in the system as taught by Blaiszik, and that the claimed invention does not require any particular “predefined interaction”, Applicant’s arguments with respect to hydroxyl groups naturally being present on the metallic particles and/or surfaces taught by Blaiszik are not persuasive.
Any objection or rejection from the prior office action not restated above has been withdrawn by the Examiner in light of Applicant’s claim amendments and arguments filed 1/28/2026.
Citation of pertinent prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Matsushima (CN1506428A, machine translation also attached) teaches an adhesive composition for providing an electrical and mechanical connection between a metal wiring and an electrode of an electronic device wherein the adhesive composition comprises a polymerizable resin, conductive particles, silane coupling agents, and capsules encapsulating metal chelates in the form of hardener particles that are capable of reacting with the silane coupling agent upon rupture of the capsules thereby functioning as latent hardeners for the adhesive composition, and wherein the capsules are formed from resin components with substituents such as hydroxyl and carboxyl groups that can react with a surface portion of the metal chelate hardener particles.
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 MONIQUE R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays from 10:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/MONIQUE R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights