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 .
Acknowledgment of Election
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 06/01/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse. MPEP § 818.01(a).
Claims 9 and 10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending. Of the pending claims, claims 1-8 are presented for examination on the merits, and claims 9 and 10 are withdrawn from consideration.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Five (5) information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) were submitted on 05/08/2023, 01/15/2025, 01/22/2025, 03/31/2025, and 08/21/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0082418 (A1) to Qin et al. (“Qin”) in view of WO 2018/110157 (A1) (also US 2019/0308248 (A1)) to Yamauchi et al. (“Yamauchi”).
US 2019/0308248 (A1) is a pre-grant publication of U.S. appl. ser. no. 16/307,877, which is a 371 national stage application of PCT/JP2017/040216, published by WIPO as WO 2018/110157 (A1). The pre-grant publication will serve as an equivalent of and the translation for the WIPO publication.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Qin discloses a method of making silver nanostructures, e.g., nanowires (method for producing silver nanowires). Para. [0071], [0072]. The method includes a step of providing a first mixture containing bromide ion in a solution containing poly(vinyl pyrrolidone) (PVP) and ethylene glycol (EG) (collectively corresponds to raw material solution (B) comprising halide ions and solvent (b)). Para. [0073], [0095]. The method further includes a step of providing a silver precursor solution (corresponds to raw material solution (A) comprising silver ions and a solvent (a)) and adding it to the bromide solution. Para. [0074].
In an example, a solution of NaBr (sodium bromide) in EG is added to PVP dissolved in EG (forming raw material solution (B) comprising halide ions and solvent (b)). Para. [0095], [0097]. A solution of AgNO3 in EG is prepared (raw material solution (A) comprising silver ions and a solvent (a)). Para. [0097]. The solution of AgNO3 in EG (1.5 mL, 100 mM) is added to the NaBr-containing solution (NaBr solution (60x10-3, 50 mM) plus PVP in EG (4 mL)) (adding raw material solution (A) to raw material solution (B)). Para. [0097].
In this example, no source of chloride ions is added (halide ions include substantially no chloride ions, forming silver nanowires in an obtained mixed solution substantially containing no chloride ions), and sodium bromide is the only source of halide ions (97.0 mol% or more of the halide ions are bromide ions).
Qin discloses that the silver precursor solution can be added at a desired injection rate, e.g., 0.15 mL/min (para. [0074], [0097]), but does not specifically identify a rate as defined in the claims. However, Qin teaches that the gradual increase of the Ag precursor concentration is critical because it allows for the Ag atoms to become significantly slow on the reaction mixture. Para. [0107]. This is important for forming nanowires with reduced lateral dimensions (thinner nanowires). Para. [0107].
Yamauchi is directed to a method for producing silver nanowires. Abstract; para. [0002]. The method includes the dropwise addition of a silver compound mixture to a polyol and halogen solution. Para. [0043], [0059]. Although the rate at which the mixture is added dropwise may be any rate, the rate is preferably lower in order to obtain silver nanowires with a longer average length. Para. [0055]. Additionally, keeping the concentration of silver in the reaction solution high after dropping is ended will make the nanowires thick; thus, the rate must be sufficiently low so that the average increase rate of silver concentration in reaction solution is kept low. Para. [0055].
It is well held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05(II). Therefore, given the direct effect of silver ion addition on the dimensions of the nanowire, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the claimed parameters, such as by minimizing the addition rate of silver ions addition and total amount of silver ions added within a particular time frame, in order to achieve a desired nanowire diameter.
Regarding claim 3, Qin discloses that the AgNO3 and the NaBr are each prepared as a solution in EG (ethylene glycol) (each of the solvent (a) and the solvent (b) is a polyol, the polyol being ethylene glycol). Para. [0095], [0097].
Regarding claim 4, Qin discloses the presence of PVP (poly(vinyl pyrrolidone)) in the solution to which NaBr is added (raw material solution (B) contains a polymer including a structural unit derived from N-vinylphyrrolidone). Para. [0095], [0097].
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Qin discloses that the AgNO3 is a source of Ag+ ions (silver ions dissociated from a silver compound in solvent (a), the silver compound is silver nitrate). Para. [0107]. Other silver compounds include CH3COOAg (silver acetate). Para. [0074].
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Qin discloses that the NaBr solution creates a bromide ion solution (halide ions are those dissociated from a halide in the solvent (b)). Para. [0007], [0073]. NaBr (sodium bromide) is a metal halide.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANESSA T. LUK whose telephone number is (571)270-3587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM ET.
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, Keith D. Hendricks, can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
/VANESSA T. LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
August 07, 2026
Prosecution Insights