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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 2011/0130261) in view of Fujino et al. (TW 201641278).
Regarding claims 1-2, 7 Lee discloses structure and a manufacturing method of a transparent conductive film, and more particularly, to a structure and a manufacturing method of a transparent conductive film which can reduce production costs while having excellent electrical conductivity and light transmittance (page 1). The metal oxide nanoparticles 330 having a uniform density and size, and through the on-off control of the plasma (modulation control) and the shutter (on-off control) The nanoparticles 330 having a uniform density and size of the TCO material may be sequentially and repeatedly arranged on the base substrate 310. That is, it is possible to manufacture the transparent conductive film 350 having a structure in which nanoparticles 330 having a uniform size and density are regularly arranged inside the oxide layer 320 (Page 6, figure 3). The arrangement of the metal oxide nanoparticles 330 meets the arrangement requirement of the claim. The oxide layer has at least one material selected from ITO, IGZO, IZO, IZTO, and ZnO, or Al, Ga, Sn, Mg, and at least one selected from ITO, IGZO, IZO, IZTO, and ZnO (claims, page 8). Based on the teaching of Lee, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select ZnO and ITO in the oxide layer, where ZnO is an insulating material thus making the gap portion insulating.
However, Lee fails to disclose that gap portions containing an organic compound.
Whereas, Fujino discloses a transparent conductive film wherein: a transparent base material, a refractive index adjustment layer containing a resin and inorganic particles (abstract). The refractive index adjusting layer 3 is a resin layer formed of a resin composition. The resin composition contains a resin and an inorganic atom. By including an inorganic atom, the refractive index of the refractive index adjusting layer 3 can be adjusted to an appropriate value, whereby the visibility of the wiring pattern can be suppressed or the light transmittance can be improved. The inorganic atom preferably constitutes an inorganic particle. That is, the resin composition preferably contains a resin and inorganic particles, and more preferably consists of a resin and inorganic particles. Examples of the resin include a curable resin and a thermoplastic resin (for example, a polyolefin tree). The active energy ray-curable resin may, for example, be a polymer having a functional group containing a polymerizable carbon-carbon double bond in the molecule. Examples of such a functional group include a vinyl group, a (meth) acrylonitrile group (methacryl fluorenyl group and/or an acryl fluorenyl group). Examples of the active energy ray-curable resin include a (meth)acrylic resin (acrylic resin and/or methacrylic resin) containing a functional group (see page 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include organic resin (compound) as taught by Fujino in the gap portion of oxide layer 320 of Lee motivated by the desire to have improved mechanical durability such as scratch properties.
As Lee in view of Fujino discloses a conductive film comprising an arrangement of semiconductor nanoparticles as presently claimed, it therefore would be obvious that a conductivity C1 along at least one direction would intrinsically be 7S/cm or more.
Regarding claim 5, As Lee in view of Fujino discloses a conductive film comprising an arrangement of semiconductor nanoparticles as presently claimed, it therefore would be obvious that when being subjected to a bending test, of 30% or less calculated based on a resistivity R1 before the test and a resistivity R2 after the test by (|R2 — R1/R1) x 100, where the bending test is a test in which the following set is counted as one time and is repeated 500 times, in the set, a test piece with the conductive film formed thereon is bent in a manner such that a bent portion has a curvature radius of 5 cm or less at a bending angle of 180°, and is further bent oppositely in the same manner would intrinsically have a rate of change in resistance.
Regarding claim 6, with respect to the shape of the semiconductor nanoparticles having columnar or polyhedron, Change in size and shape is not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). MPEP 2144.04[R-1].
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 2011/0130261) and Fujino et al. (TW 201641278) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Sato et al. (TW 201518093).
Regarding claim 8, Lee in view of Fujino fails to disclose semiconductor nanoparticles include copper sulfide.
Whereas, Sato discloses transparent conductive film having a transparent conductive layer on at least one surface of the hard coat film. The material constituting the transparent conductive layer of the present invention is not particularly limited as long as the visible light transmittance of the transparent conductive layer at 550 nm is 70% or more, and examples thereof include copper sulfide, zinc oxide, IZO, ITO, IGZO (page 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include copper sulfide as taught by Sato as the semiconductor nanoparticles of Lee motivated by the desire to have excellent conductivity.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 2011/0130261) in view of Fujino et al. (TW 201641278) and Sato et al. (TW 201518093) as applied to claim 8, further in view of Marikar et al. (US 5017420).
Regarding claim 9, Lee in view of Sato fails to disclose that copper sulfide includes covellite and/or roxybite.
Whereas, Marikar discloses electrically conductive shaped article and article having covellite copper sulfide (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include covellite copper sulfide as taught by Marikar in view of Sato as the semiconductor nanoparticles of Lee motivated by the desire to have excellent conductivity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 01/02/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Fujino discloses that the transparent conductive layer 6 provides the electrical conductivity in its transparent conductive film 1 (see Fujino, pages 10 and 11). Fujino provides the refractive index adjustment layer 3 in combination with the optical adjustment layer 5 to adjust the refractive index of the transparent conductive film 1 to suppress the visibility of the wiring pattern or improve light transmittance (see Fujino, page 5). Nothing in Fujino indicates that its refractive index adjustment layer 3 (or materials thereof) is electrically conductive. To the contrary, Fujino identifies the transparent conductive layer 6 as the conductive layer with the refractive index adjustment layer 3 being one of the non-conductive layers in its transparent conductive film 1.
Lee teaches that the transparent conductive oxide (TCO) material fills the gaps between the nanoparticles in the oxide layer (see Lee, Abstract, Figures 2 - 5, and page 3). Accordingly, removal or replacement of the transparent conductive oxide (TCO) in Lee with a non-conductive material would result in the oxide layer (and transparent conductive film 350) no longer being a "conductive" layer. Accordingly, the rejection's proposed modification of Lee to have the organic resin compound of Fujino fill the gaps between the nanoparticles would result in the oxide layer of Lee no longer containing the TCO material and no longer being a "conductive" layer. Thus, the rejection's modification would be expected to result in the transparent conductive film of Lee no longer being conductive, and the rejection's proposed modification of Lee with Fujino would result in a non-conductive film that is no longer operable for its intended purpose of being a transparent conductive film. As such, the rejection's combination of Lee and Fujino would result in the transparent conductive film of Lee no longer being operable for its intended purpose and is not obvious.
However, it should be noted that Fujino is used as a teaching reference to include organic resin (compound) in the gap portion of oxide layer 320 of Lee and it does not teach against replacing the transparent conductive oxide (TCO) in Lee with a non-conductive material would result in the oxide layer (and transparent conductive film 350), thus the oxide layer will still be conductive layer, absent evidence to the contrary.
Applicant argues that the refractive index adjustment layer 3 is a non-conductive layer in the transparent conductive film 1 of Fujino, it would be expected that incorporating materials of the refractive index adjustment layer 3 into a conductive layer would impair the conductivity of the conductive layer. Accordingly, those of skill in the art would not be motivated to modify the conductive oxide layer to include components of the non-conductive refractive index adjustment.
However, it should be noted that Fujino is used as a teaching reference to include organic resin (compound) in the gap portion of oxide layer 320 of Lee and it does not teach against replacing the transparent conductive oxide (TCO) in Lee with a non-conductive material would result in the oxide layer (and transparent conductive film 350), thus the oxide layer will still be conductive layer, absent evidence to the contrary and both Lee and Fujino are directed towards transparent conductive film and are analogous art and It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include organic resin (compound) as taught by Fujino in the gap portion of oxide layer 320 of Lee motivated by the desire to have improved mechanical durability such as scratch properties.
Applicant argues that Fujino discusses that the refractive index adjusting layer 3 can provide a scratch resistance layer for the transparent conductive layer 6 (see Fujino, fifth paragraph on page 5). However, nothing in Fujino discusses or suggests the transparent conductive layer 6 providing scratch resistance to the transparent conductive layer itself. Accordingly, there is no reasonable motivation from the teachings of Fujino to incorporate the resin into an oxide layer to provide improved mechanical durability such as scratch properties to the oxide layer, as suggested by the rejection. Thus, the rejection's basis for modifying Lee based on Fujino to provide improved mechanical durability is not supported by the teachings of Fujino and is improper.
However, it should be noted that if the material in the layer provides a property i.e. scratch resistance, if that component is included in a layer or a region, it therefore would be obvious that it would provide the same property.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RONAK C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-6:30PM (FLEX).
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, ALICIA CHEVALIER can be reached on 5712721490. 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.
/RONAK C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights