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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments filed March 3, 2026. Claims 1-5 are pending. Claims 1 and 2 have been amended. Claims 3-5 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The rejection of Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudd (WO 2004/068389) in view of Kobara (EP 3061848) for the reasons set forth below..
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudd (WO 2004/068389) in view of Kobara (EP 3061848).
Hudd teaches an electroless plating method comprising prewetting (moistening) the fabric substrate (fiber material), depositing of an activator precursor such as palladium acetate (catalyst precursor) onto the substrate, applying a reducing agent to reduce the catalyst precursor to a catalyst such as palladium, treating the catalyst coated substrate with a different metal ion such as copper, silver or nickel ions and applying a reducing agent to reduce the metal ion to metal (page 8, last paragraph; page 9, first paragraph; page 12, next to last paragraph; page 23, paragraph 2; page 2, paragraph 2; page 26, next to last paragraph). Hudd teaches the fibers may partially dry out in between treatments, indicating some level of moisture is still present, meeting the claimed limitation of moistened (page 13, paragraph 2). Hudd teaches sequential or simultaneous application of the catalysts, reducing agent and metal ions (page 13, paragraph 2).
Hudd does not teach the catalyst, precursor, first reducing agent, metal ion solution and second reducing agent are applied by electrostatically spraying.
Kobara teaches a manufacturing method for providing metallized coatings to fabric and fibrous materials (paragraph 0050) it is effective to electrospray (electrostatically spraying) a solution containing a metal ion onto a fiber material and electrospraying a reducing agent solution onto the fiber to reduce the metal ion into the metal, wherein the metals can be silver and palladium (claim 1, claim 5; paragraph 0018). Kobara teaches electrospraying comprises spraying a composition in the form of charged droplets toward a counter electrode to uniformly impregnate the fiber material (paragraph 0116). Kobara teaches electrospraying generates an electric field (paragraph 0017). Kobara teaches in an embodiment that the sprayed liquid composition contains droplets that have a positive potential and the fiber impregnation object can have be grounded (0KV) or negative potential (paragraph 0020). In another embodiment, Kobara teaches that the sprayed liquid composition contains droplets that have a negative potential and the fiber impregnation object can have be grounded (0KV) or positive potential (paragraph 0020). Kobara teaches continuously process in which the fabric treated with the metal ion by electrostatic spray is then conveyed through a feed mechanism to be treated with the reducing agent by electrostatic spray (integrated) manner (Figure 5; page 14 505-505; paragraph 0058). Kobara teaches the reducing agent and the metal ion are sprayed from separate nozzles positioned opposite from one another ( paragraph 0068, Figure 5, nozzle 504- sprays silver nitrate metal ion and nozzle 502-sprays ascorbic acid reducing agent).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Hudd by electrostatically spraying the catalyst precursor metal salt of palladium acetate, the first reducing agent to reduce the catalyst precursor to a catalyst palladium and the second metal ion salt such as silver ion and the second reducing agent to reduce the metal ion to silver as Kobara teaches metal salts and reducing agents are effectively separately electrostatically sprayed via separate nozzles which are positioned opposite to one another onto fabrics to cause a reaction which reduces the metal salt to the metal. Kobara teaches this electrostatic spray permits uniform application of the sprayed composition onto the fiber. Substituting a known effective electrostatic spraying technique for metallizing fiber by applying metal salts and reducing agents sequentially to uniformly apply the chemicals and reduce the metal salts to metals for inkjet printing or immersion application of the chemicals to achieve the same results of metallized fibers would be obvious. Using Kobara’s electrostatic spraying method would be beneficial for uniform impregnation and application to the fabric and efficiency of metal particle formation. Using an integrated method of first feeding the fabric to the catalyst precursory and reducing agent sprayers followed by treating with a metal ion and reducing agent sprayers in a continuous in-line integrated manner would be obvious as Kobara teaches continuously feeding the fabric from one solution containing electrostatic sprayer to the next solution containing electrostatic sprayer for performing a reduction reaction. Using a third and fourth set of electrostatic sprayers to apply the metal ion and second reducing agent to the catalyst treated fiber would be obvious. Hudd teaches the benefits of applying a catalyst precursor and first reducing agent prior to applying the metal ion and second reducing agent so the catalyst can facilitate the metal ion reduction and electroless plating.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed regarding Hudd in view of Kobara have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner argues that both Hudd and Kobara are directed to producing electroless plated substrates applying the same reducing agents and metal ions onto fibrous substrates to effectively form an electroless plated fibrous material. Substituting a known effective method of electrospraying similar chemicals onto similar fibrous substrates for another effective method of applying the same chemicals to a fibrous substrate to arrive at the same electroless plated film on the substrate is obvious to try. Hudd is relied on to demonstrate it is known to apply catalyst precursors to a fabric followed by reducing agents for the catalyst precursors to form a catalyst on the fiber followed by applying a metal ion and reducing agent for the metal ion to apply a metal film on the fibrous substrate.
Kobara is relied upon to demonstrate that electrospraying is an effective way of electroless plating of metals onto fibrous substrates. Kobara teaches electrospraying generates an electric field (paragraph 0017). Kobara teaches in an embodiment that the sprayed liquid composition contains droplets that have a positive potential and the fiber impregnation object can have be grounded (0KV) or negative potential (paragraph 0020). In another embodiment, Kobara teaches that the sprayed liquid composition contains droplets that have a negative potential and the fiber impregnation object can have be grounded (0KV) or positive potential (paragraph 0020). Kobara teaches the reducing agent and the metal ion are sprayed from separate nozzles positioned opposite from one another (paragraph 0068, Figure 5, nozzle 504- sprays silver nitrate metal ion and nozzle 502-sprays ascorbic acid reducing agent) which would react with one another in the same electric field as they interact in a common location next to the fiber.
It is the examiner’s position that the catalyst precursor and reducing agent in a first phase can be applied to a fibrous substrate followed by a second phase of metal ion and reducing agent as taught by Hudd using the methods of electrospray application as taught by Kobara. Since the interaction between the metal ion and the reducing agent occurs in the same space next to the fibrous substrate it occurs in the same electric field on the fibrous material. Nothing in the claim precludes the metal ion and the reducing agent from being sprayed from oppositely positioned nozzles wherein the spray reaches the fibrous material in an adjacent location. This still meets the limitation of spraying onto the fibrous material as nothing in the claims requires the nozzles to be facing the fibrous material, rather just that the spray produced from two oppositely positioned nozzles contacts the fibrous material. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
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 AMINA S KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm EST.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/AMINA S KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761