DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks filed on 12/22/2025. Claims 1-2 and 6-12 are examined below. Claim 1 is currently amended. Claims 13-20 were previously withdrawn from consideration.
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . -- 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
4. Claims 1-2 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishimaru et al. (JP 2002-338923 A; cited on Applicant’s IDS filed on 02/04/2025), in view of Tsuchiya (JP 2005-028218 A). The text citations to Ishimaru and Tsuchiya in this office action are to PDFs of their English machine translation accessed online from Espacenet or PE2E, respectively.
As to independent claim 1, Ishimaru teaches a conductive paste including: an organic material (e.g. thermosetting resin in para. 0020); metal particles dispersed in the organic material and having a first particle diameter; and a heating element dispersed in the organic material and having a second particle diameter (see para. 0007, 0010, claim 1: a conductive adhesive comprising a thermosetting resin, conductive particles and a self-heating substance; para. 0017: average size of the metal powder or metal oxide powder serving as the heating element (i.e. self-heating substance) is preferably 10 µm or less; para. 0019: conductive particles in the conductive adhesive include metal particles), where the magnetic heating element is contained in an amount of 10 to 20 wt% with respect to the metal particles (see para. 0015, 0018: the content of the metal oxide powder as a heating element in the conductive adhesive is preferably 0.5 to 30%, more preferably 1 to 20% by weight; para. 0016: specific examples of the heating element include oxides of Fe).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the portion of the prior art's range which is within the range of applicant's claims because it has been held to be obvious to select a value in a known range by optimization for the best results. See MPEP 2144.05. Ishimura discloses in Example 1 (para. 0021) that the conductive particles used were silver particles with an average particle size of 5 µm and self-heating substance was ferrous oxide (FeO) powder with an average particle size of 1 µm, which corresponds to the claimed first and second particle diameters.
Ishimaru fails to explicitly disclose that the organic material (e.g. resin) further includes an organic solvent and a dispersant.
Tsuchiya, in analogous art of conductive pastes (see para. 0019), teaches that it is known to include organic solvents and dispersants with a resin (see para. 0075-0082: the electric conductivity of the liquid is determined by a combination of the electric conductivity adjusting substance and an organic solvent; para. 0075: various additives such as dispersants can be added to the liquid).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Tsuchiya, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the conductive paste taught by Ishimaru by incorporating the solvents and dispersants as taught by Tsuchiya to arrive at the claimed invention because it would have been obvious to add solvents and dispersants to adjust viscosity of the paste composition. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select the instantly claimed components for the claimed conductive paste with a reasonable expectation of success for printing on a substrate by methods such as ink jet (see present specification at para. 102 and Tsuchiya at para. 0004-0005 & 0013), and would expect such a product to have similar properties to those claimed, absent the showing of unexpected results.
Regarding the limitation, “wherein during an induction heating, the metal particles are primary sintered by a self- heating of the magnetic heating element, and then the metal particles are secondary sintered by a self-heating of the metal particles in a quasi-bulk state”, this limitation is directed to intended use of the claimed conductive paste and property of the conductive paste upon induction heating that does not distinguish the claimed conductive paste from that of the references as combined. The conductive paste of the references as combined comprises conductive particles and a self-heating substance of metal powder or metal oxide powder (magnetic heating element) in amount as claimed, thus capable of being induction heated and under certain conditions of induction heating, the metal particles being primary sintered by a self-heating of the self-heating substance and then the metal particles secondary sintered by a self-heating of the metal particles in a quasi-bulk state.
As to claim 2, Ishimaru and Tsuchiya teach the conductive paste of claim 1, wherein the second particle diameter of the magnetic heating element is the same or smaller than the first particle diameter of the metal particles (see Ishimaru Example 1 in para. 0021: silver particles with an average particle size of 5 µm and self-heating ferrous oxide (FeO) powder with an average particle size of 1 µm).
As to claim 6, Ishimaru and Tsuchiya teach the conductive paste of claim 1, wherein the metal particles are at least one of Ag, Al, Pt, Sn, Cu, Zn, Pd or Ni (see Ishimaru para. 0019).
As to claims 7-9, Ishimaru and Tsuchiya teach the conductive paste of claim 1, wherein the first particle diameter is 10 nm to 100 µm (or 10 nm to 50 µm) (see Ishimaru para. 0017 & 0021); claim 1, wherein the second particle diameter is 10 nm to 10 µm (see Ishimaru para. 0021). See also MPEP 2144.05 for obviousness of ranges.
As to claims 10-11, Ishimaru and Tsuchiya teach the conductive paste of claim 1, wherein the dispersant or organic solvent of the organic material has 30 or less carbon atoms (see Tsuchiya para. 0078); claim 1, wherein the organic material further includes a binder and a catalyst (see Tsuchiya para. 0075).
As to claim 12, Ishimaru and Tsuchiya teach the conductive paste of claim 1, wherein the thickness of the conductive paste is 0.001 mm to 0.5 mm (see Ishimaru para. 0017: thickness less than 10 µm (equivalent to 0.01 mm) and para. 0023: thickness of the screen printing plate was set to 0.1 mm).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed December 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ishimaru discloses heating to accelerate curing of the thermosetting resin and not induction heating. Applicant’s argument are directed to the added limitation of sintering of the metal particles during induction heating. Claim 1 is a claim to conductive paste of organic material, metal particles and magnetic heating element and is not distinguished from the prior art by the composition of the paste. Limitation directed to performing a process on the paste and what happens to the metal particles and magnetic heating element during such process does not distinguish the claimed paste from that of the references as combined. The conductive paste of the references as combined is capable of induction heating and the metal particles being sintered by such induction heating of the metal particles and heating element. As taught by Ishijima 2001/0005936 cited of interest, induction heating of conductive paste made of conductive filler and metal heating elements is known.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ishijima 2001/0005936 teaches induction heating of conductive paste made of conductive filler and metal heating elements.
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 MELVIN C MAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-1234. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at (571) 272-4729. 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.
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759