DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 1/21/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7, 9-11, and 14-24 remain pending in the application. Claim(s) 17-21 and 23 have been withdrawn. Claim(s) 8 and 12-13 have been canceled.
Claim interpretation
The claim term “dry sintering layer” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the original disclosure. Here, the term “dry sintering layer” is interpreted consistent with original claims 1, 3, 8, and 11 such that the dry sintering layer may include solvents, may be wet with liquid, and may require drying after deposition.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
“sintering the layer of metal nanoparticles to form a sintered metal film” in claim 1;
“wherein a solvent for dispersing metal nanoparticles comprises at least one of hexane, octane, or toluene” in claim 10;
“wherein the deposit of the layer of dry sintering layer comprises at least one of drop-casting, Mayer rod coating, or doctor blade techniques” in claim 11;
“which ensures the resultant film is dry” in claim 11;
“wherein the solvent for dispersing the sintering materials comprises at least one of methanol, ethanol, isopropanol, 1-butanol, DMF, ethyl acetate, or anisole” in claim 11;
“the substrate comprises bare glass, silicon wafer, metal film, or flexible substrate” in claim 9.
“wherein the electrical conductivity of said conductive metal film is increased as compared to the as deposited metal nanoparticle film” in claim 15.
The Examiner notes that the above objections are specification objections, as opposed to new matter rejections, under 35 USC §112(a). While the original claims as filed may provide support that the subject matter is not new matter, the specification must provide clear support or antecedent bases for the claims. Correspondence between the specification and claims is required by 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), which provides that claim terms must find clear support or antecedent basis in the specification. If the specification does not provide the needed support or antecedent basis for the claim terms, the specification should be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). See MPEP § 608.01(o) and MPEP § 2181, subsection IV. Applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the claim terms provided no new matter is introduced, or amend the claim. See MPEP § 2173.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 14-16, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3 contain the limitation “depositing a layer of metal nanoparticles at a substrate, wherein the metal nanoparticles are isolated in the layer, and wherein the depositing is performed absent application of a wet layer.” The instant specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, i.e., “absent application of a wet layer.” The instant specification is entirely silent regarding a “wet layer”. Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. Any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. See MPEP § 2163 - § 2163.07(b) for a discussion of the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. See MPEP § 2173.05(i). Claims 2, 4-7, 9-11, 14-16, 22, and 24 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claims 1 and 3.
Claims 1 and 3 contain the limitation “depositing a dry sintering layer at the substrate, also absent application of a wet layer.” The instant specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, i.e., “absent application of a wet layer.” The instant specification is entirely silent regarding a “wet layer”. In fact, the specification teaches that solvents are used in the deposition process. For example, instant specification page 9 teaches that “after the deposition, the film was heated at mild temperature (e.g. 65 °C) for 10 minutes to drive away the small amount solvent left in the film.” Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. Any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. See MPEP § 2163 - § 2163.07(b) for a discussion of the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. See MPEP § 2173.05(i). Claims 2, 4-7, 9-11, 14-16, 22, and 24 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claims 1 and 3.
Claims 1 and 3 contain the limitation “sintering the layer of metal nanoparticles to form a sintered metal film upon contact between the two layers.” The instant specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, i.e., “upon contact between the two layers.” Claims 2, 4-7, 9-11, 14-16, 22, and 24 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claims 1 and 3.
Claims 1 and 3 contain the limitation “sintering the layer of metal nanoparticles to form a sintered metal film upon contact between the two layers comprising the dry sintering layer and the substrate.” The instant specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, i.e., “sintering the layer of metal nanoparticles upon contact between the two layers comprising the dry sintering layer and the substrate.” Claims 2, 4-7, 9-11, 14-16, 22, and 24 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claims 1 and 3.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 14-16, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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.
Claims 1 and 3 contain the limitation “sintering the layer of metal nanoparticles to form a sintered metal film upon contact between the two layers comprising the dry sintering layer and the substrate.” It is unclear how “sintering the layer of metal nanoparticles” occurs “upon contact between the dry sintering layer and the substrate.” The dry sintering layer may be applied to the substrate before the layer of metal nanoparticles, see claims 2 and 4. Accordingly, claims 1 and 3 may require that the dry sintering layer be sintered before it is applied. Claims 2, 4-7, 9-11, 14-16, 22, and 24 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claims 1 and 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
Claims 1-6, 9, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magdassi et al. (US 20120168684 A1), previously cited.
Regarding claim 1, Magdassi teaches “a continuous network of sintered NPs, which in the case of metallic NPs possesses high electrical conductivity” (which reads upon “a method of preparing a conductive metal film, comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0039]). Magdassi teaches that “the NPs are typically metallic nanoparticles” (which reads upon “metal nanoparticles”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0056]). Magdassi teaches that “the contacting of the NPs with the sintering agent on the substrate is achieved in a two-step process, involving an initial pre-treatment (pre-coating) of the substrate by the sintering agent or by the NPs” (paragraph [0041]). Magdassi teaches that “in embodiments where the substrate is pre-treated with NPs (pre-coated to obtain a film thereof), subsequent to NP film formation, the film is treated with a sintering agent and allowed to undergo sintering” (which reads upon “depositing a layer of metal nanoparticles at a substrate, absent application of a wet layer immersing the substrate prior to the depositing of the layer of metal nanoparticles, wherein the metal nanoparticles are isolated in the layer; depositing a dry sintering layer at the substrate, also absent application of a wet layer immersing the substrate prior to depositing of the dry sintering layer and after the depositing of the dry sintering layer”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0041]). Magdassi teaches that “in some embodiments, the pattern is formed by contacting the substrate with a solution comprising said NPs, said contacting being selected from coating, dipping, printing, ink-jetting, and by any other means” (which reads upon “absent application of a wet layer immersing the substrate prior to depositing of the dry sintering layer and after the depositing of the dry sintering layer, and absence of immersion of the substrate in liquid”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0067]; while dipping reads on application of a wet layer immersing the substrate, the other cited application methods do not). Magdassi teaches that “the pattern formed prior to sintering is non-conductive” (which reads upon “wherein the metal nanoparticles are isolated in the layer”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0067]). Magdassi teaches that “the sintering is spontaneous and does not require external application of energy, e.g., heat” (which reads upon “sintering the layer of metal nanoparticles to form a sintered metal film upon contact between the two layers, comprising the dry sintering layer and the substrate, under room temperature and absence of immersion of the substrate in liquid”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0049]; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that if the sintering is spontaneous than it begins to occur as soon as both the NPs and the sintering agent are present). Magdassi teaches that “the sintering temperature is at or around room temperature, namely between 20 and 30° C” (paragraph [0048]). Magdassi is silent regarding use of an additional wet layer.
Regarding claim 2, Magdassi teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Magdassi teaches that “in embodiments where the substrate is pre-treated (pre-coated) with the sintering agent, subsequent thereto NPs are deposited onto the pre-treated substrate and the NPs are allowed to undergo sintering” (paragraph [0041]). Magdassi teaches that “in embodiments where the substrate is pre-treated with NPs (pre-coated to obtain a film thereof), subsequent to NP film formation, the film is treated with a sintering agent and allowed to undergo sintering” (paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 3, Magdassi teaches “a continuous network of sintered NPs, which in the case of metallic NPs possesses high electrical conductivity” (which reads upon “a method of sintering of isolated metal nanoparticles into a smooth and conductive metal film, comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0039]). Magdassi teaches that “the NPs are typically metallic nanoparticles” (which reads upon “metal nanoparticles”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0056]). Magdassi teaches that “the contacting of the NPs with the sintering agent on the substrate is achieved in a two-step process, involving an initial pre-treatment (pre-coating) of the substrate by the sintering agent or by the NPs” (paragraph [0041]). Magdassi teaches that “in embodiments where the substrate is pre-treated with NPs (pre-coated to obtain a film thereof), subsequent to NP film formation, the film is treated with a sintering agent and allowed to undergo sintering” (which reads upon “depositing a layer of metal nanoparticles at a substrate, wherein the depositing is performed absent application of a wet layer immersing the substrate prior to the depositing of the layer of metal nanoparticles; depositing the dry sintering layer at the substrate, also absent application of a wet layer immersing the substrate prior to depositing of the dry sintering layer and after the depositing of the dry sintering layer”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0041]). Magdassi teaches that “in some embodiments, the pattern is formed by contacting the substrate with a solution comprising said NPs, said contacting being selected from coating, dipping, printing, ink-jetting, and by any other means” (which reads upon “absent application of a wet layer immersing the substrate prior to depositing of the dry sintering layer and after the depositing of the dry sintering layer, and absence of immersion of the substrate in liquid”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0067]; while dipping reads on application of a wet layer immersing the substrate, the other cited application methods do not). Magdassi teaches that “the pattern formed prior to sintering is non-conductive” (which reads upon “isolated metal nanoparticles”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0067]). Magdassi teaches that “the sintering is spontaneous and does not require external application of energy, e.g., heat” (which reads upon “sintering the layer of metal nanoparticles to form a sintered metal film upon contact between the two layers, comprising the dry sintering layer and the substrate, under room temperature and absence of immersion of the substrate in liquid”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0049]; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that if the sintering is spontaneous than it begins to occur as soon as both the NPs and the sintering agent are present). Magdassi teaches that “the sintering temperature is at or around room temperature, namely between 20 and 30° C” (paragraph [0048]). Magdassi is silent regarding use of an additional wet layer.
Regarding claim 4, Magdassi teaches the method of claim 3 as stated above. Magdassi teaches that “in embodiments where the substrate is pre-treated (pre-coated) with the sintering agent, subsequent thereto NPs are deposited onto the pre-treated substrate and the NPs are allowed to undergo sintering” (paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 5, Magdassi teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Magdassi teaches that “the plurality of nanoparticles may or may not be of the same material, same shape and/or size, or same chemical and/or physical properties” (paragraph [0051]). Magdassi teaches that “in some embodiments, the nanoparticles are rod-like particles having a nanometric or micrometric (above 1000 nm) length and a nanometric diameter, while in other embodiments, the nanoparticles are rod-like particles of micrometric length, having on their surface at least one feature (e.g., protrusion) of a nanometric size” (paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 6, Magdassi teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Magdassi teaches that “the NPs are made from a material selected from silver, copper, gold” (paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 9, Magdassi teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Magdassi teaches that “in embodiments where the substrate is pre-treated (pre-coated) with the sintering agent, subsequent thereto NPs are deposited onto the pre-treated substrate and the NPs are allowed to undergo sintering” (paragraph [0041]). Magdassi teaches that “in embodiments where the substrate is pre-treated with NPs (pre-coated to obtain a film thereof), subsequent to NP film formation, the film is treated with a sintering agent and allowed to undergo sintering” (paragraph [0041]). Magdassi teaches that “the substrate may be of a single material, e.g., a metal, and may have a surface material which is the same or different from the substrate material itself” (paragraph [0066]). Magdassi teaches that “the substrate and/or its surface, independently of each other, may be selected from glass, polymeric films, plain paper, porous paper, non-porous paper, coated paper, flexible paper, copier paper, photo paper, glossy photopaper, semi-glossy photopaper, heavy weight matte paper, billboard paper, vinyl paper, high gloss polymeric films, transparent conductive materials, and plastic (poly(ethylene terephthalate), PET, polyacrylates (PA), polyethilene naphtalate (PEN), polyethersulphone (PES), polyethylene (PE), polyimide (PI), polypropylene (PP), polycarbonate (PC) and others” (paragraph [0066]).
Regarding claim 14, Magdassi teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Magdassi teaches that “the sintering is spontaneous and does not require external application of energy, e.g., heat” (paragraph [0049]; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that if the sintering is spontaneous than it begins to occur as soon as both the NPs and the sintering agent are present). Magdassi teaches that “the [sintering] temperature is between 5 and 50° C. or between 5 and 30° C” (paragraph [0047]; room temperature is about 20-25° C).
Regarding claim 15, Magdassi teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Magdassi teaches that “the pattern formed prior to sintering is non-conductive” (paragraph [0067]). Magdassi teaches that “the sintered pattern is conductive, e.g., having electrical conductivity greater than 1% bulk silver” (paragraph [0067]). Magdassi teaches that “the electrical resistivity of the conductive pattern is lower than 1.6·10−6 Ωm” (paragraph [0067]).
Regarding claim 16, Magdassi teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Magdassi teaches that “the sintering is spontaneous and does not require external application of energy, e.g., heat” (paragraph [0049]; spontaneous reads on saving time; does not require external application of energy, e.g., heat reads on saving money as no heating equipment is needed).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magdassi et al. (US 20120168684 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jurin et al., Preparation of conductive PDDA/(PEDOT:PSS) multilayer thin film: Influence of polyelectrolyte solution composition, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 431 (2014) 64–70.
Regarding claim 7, Magdassi teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Magdassi teaches that “the sintering agent is a coagulant material, capable of coagulating the NPs under the specified conditions” (paragraph [0057]). Magdassi teaches that “the sintering agent is selected to cause at least one of: (i) irreversible coalescence of the closely located NPs due to neutralization of the charges at the NPs surface, (ii) screening charges at the NPs surface, (iii) desorption of the dispersing agent, or (iv) any other mechanism which enables coagulation and coalescence” (paragraph [0057]). Magdassi teaches that “the sintering agents are thus selected amongst salts, e.g., agents containing chlorides such as KCl, NaCl, MgCl2, AlCl3, LiCl, CaCl2; charged polymers, polycations, e.g., poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride) (PDAC); polyimides, polypyrroles; polyanions; polyacrylic acid (PAA), polyethyleneimine, carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), polynaphthalene sulfonate/formaldehyde poly(γ-glutamic acid); acids, e.g., HCl, H2SO4, HNO3, H3PO4, acetic acid, acrylic acid; and bases, e.g., ammonia, organic amines, e.g. aminomethyl propanol (AMP), NaOH and KOH” (which reads upon “wherein said dry sintering layer comprises a material that provides hydrogen ions”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0057]; polycations reads on a material that provides hydrogen ions). Magdassi teaches that “FIGS. 4A-C are SEM images of negatively charged silver NPs printed on (FIG. 4A) glass, (FIG. 4B) glass pre-coated with PDAC, and (FIG. 4C) PET pre-coated with PDAC” (paragraph [0080]). Magdassi teaches that “in some embodiments, the pattern is formed by contacting the substrate with a solution comprising said NPs, said contacting being selected from coating, dipping, printing, ink-jetting, and by any other means” (which reads upon “which is dry and has no immersion in solution before deposition and after deposition”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0067]; while dipping reads on immersion in solution, the other cited application methods do not).
Magdassi is silent regarding including at least one of hydrogen-intercalated molybdenum oxide (HMO), hydrogen-intercalated vanadium oxide (HVO), PEDOT:PSS, or phosphomolybdic acid (PMA), which is dry and has no obvious solution after deposition.
Jurin is similarly concerned with multilayer films made of PEDOT:PSS poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene):poly(styrene sulfonate) and PDDA poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride) (abstract; Jurin abbreviates poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride as PDDA while Magdassi abbreviates poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride) as PDAC, but they are the same compound). Jurin teaches that “conducting polymers have been studied in detail as thin films for a huge array of applications including antistatic coatings, electrochromic devices, sensors, capacitors, transistors, light emitting diodes (LEDs) and photovoltaics” (page 64). Jurin teaches that “Poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT), a polythiophene derivative, has become a successful conductive polymer through its high conductivity, stability and transparency in the visible range, and that by introducing a water soluble polyelectrolyte, poly(styrene sulfonate) (PSS) during the polymerization, PEDOT:PSS complexes have been generated with a high water solubility” (page 64). Jurin teaches that “in this study LbL films were prepared using poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride) PDDA and PEDOT:PSS polyelectrolytes” (page 65; positively charged polyelectrolytes are also called polycations).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the PDAC/PDDA polycation film of Magdassi with a PEDOT:PSS polycation film, as taught by Jurin because Jurin teaches that both polycation films are known to be useful when making conductive film. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Further, it has been held that obviousness exists where the selection of a known material was based on its suitability for its intended use. MPEP § 2144.07. Here, Jurin teaches that PEDOT:PSS is suitable as a polycation for use with conductive films. Accordingly, the prior art renders the claim obvious.
Claims 10 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magdassi et al. (US 20120168684 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Noh et al. (US 20210098202 A1).
Regarding claims 10 and 22, Magdassi teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Magdassi teaches that “in some embodiments, the pattern is formed by contacting the substrate with a solution comprising said NPs, said contacting being selected from coating, dipping, printing, ink-jetting, and by any other means” (which reads upon “coating, which ensures the resultant film is dry and has no immersion in solution before deposition and after deposition”, as recited in instant claim 22; paragraph [0067]; while dipping reads on immersion in solution, the other cited application methods do not).
Magdassi is silent regarding wherein a solvent for dispersing metal nanoparticles comprises at least one of hexane, octane, or toluene and said metal nanoparticles deposition approach comprises at least one of spin-coating, drop-casting, spray-coating, Mayer rod coating, or doctor blade coating techniques.
Noh is similarly concerned with metal oxide nanoparticle ink, a method of preparing the same, and a photoelectric device using the same, and that according to the present disclosure, when the metal oxide nanoparticle ink including a crystallized metal oxide nanoparticle is prepared, and is applied to a photoelectric device, crystallization is possible at low temperature without heat treatment (paragraph [0025]). Noh teaches that “the metal oxide nanoparticle ink according to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the dispersion solvent may include at least one of water, acetone, ethanol, butanol, isopropanol, methanol, hexanol, hexane, cyclohexane, toluene, chlorobenzene, benzene, chloroform, and diethyl ether” (which reads upon “wherein a solvent for dispersing metal nanoparticles comprises at least one of hexane, octane, or toluene”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0039]). Noh teaches that “the metal oxide nanoparticle ink may be applied on the photoactive layer using any one method of spin coating, spray coating, ultra-spray coating, electrospinning coating, slot die coating, gravure coating, bar coating, roll coating, dip coating, shear coating, screen printing, inkjet printing, and nozzle printing” (which reads upon “said metal nanoparticles deposition approach comprises at least one of spin-coating, drop-casting, spray-coating, Mayer rod coating, or doctor blade coating techniques”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0155]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the unspecified coating method of Magdassi with spin coating, spray coating, ultra-spray coating, as taught by Noh because Noh teaches that such coating methods are known to be appropriate for forming a film of nanoparticles containing metals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the water solvent of Magdassi with hexane or toluene, as taught by Noh because Noh teaches that water, hexane, and toluene are known solvents for inkjet printing nanoparticles containing metals. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). It has been held that obviousness exists where the selection of a known material was based on its suitability for its intended use. MPEP § 2144.07. Here, Noh teaches that hexane or toluene are suitable as solvents for use with inkjet printing nanoparticles containing metals. Accordingly, the prior art renders the claim obvious.
Claims 11, 22, and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magdassi et al. (US 20120168684 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Sung et al. (KR 20170107625 A), as machine translated, previously cited.
Regarding claims 11, 22, and 24, Magdassi teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Magdassi teaches “an initial pre-treatment (pre-coating) of the substrate by the sintering agent or by the NPs” (paragraph [0041]). Magdassi teaches that “in embodiments where the substrate is pre-treated (pre-coated) with the sintering agent, subsequent thereto NPs are deposited onto the pre-treated substrate and the NPs are allowed to undergo sintering” (paragraph [0041]). Magdassi teaches that “said contacting being selected from coating, dipping, printing, ink-jetting, and by any other means” (which reads upon “coating, there is no immersion in solution before deposition and after deposition”, as recited in instant claims 22 and 24; paragraph [0067]; while dipping reads on immersion in solution, the other cited application methods do not).
Magdassi is silent regarding the method of coating.
Sung is similarly concerned with printed electronics [which] is a technology that creates activated devices by printing conductive metal nano-ink on a substrate and then sintering it (paragraph [0002]). Sung teaches that “the method for printing the conductive copper ink on the substrate may be selected from the group consisting of screen printing, inkjet printing, micro-contact printing, imprinting, gravure printing, gravure-offset printing, flexography printing, and spin coating” (which reads upon “wherein the deposit of the layer of dry sintering layer comprises; at least one of spin-coating, drop-casting, spray-coating, Mayer rod coating, or doctor blade coating techniques”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0055]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the unknown coating method of Magdassi with screen printing, micro-contact printing, imprinting, gravure printing, gravure-offset printing, flexography printing, or spin coating, as taught by Sung because Sung teaches that such coating methods are appropriate for preparing a substrate for printed electronics. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143.A.).
Magdassi is silent regarding wherein the solvent for dispersing the sintering materials comprises at least one methanol, ethanol, isopropanol, 1- butanol, DMF, ethyl acetate, and anisole.
Sung teaches that “the solvent may be ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, triethylene glycol, polyethylene glycol, propylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, hexylene glycol, glycerine, isopropyl alcohol, 2-methoxy ethanol, pentyl alcohol, butyl acrylate (BA), athylacetate (EA), glycerol, cresol, methylethylketone (MEK), butyl carbitol acetate (BCA), butyl carbitol (BC), texanol, terpineol, hexyl alcohol, butyl alcohol, and that it may be one or a mixture of two or more selected from the group consisting of alcohol, octyl alcohol, formamide, methyl ethyl ketone, ethyl alcohol, methyl alcohol, and acetone” (paragraph [0047]; isopropyl alcohol is isopropanol).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the unknown solvent of Magdassi with a common solvent such as isopropyl alcohol (isopropanol), as taught by Sung because Sung teaches that isopropyl alcohol is an appropriate solvent for printed electronic applications. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143.A.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the specification objections improperly fail to indicate what particular features of what claims are not provided antecedent basis or support in the specification (remarks, page 7). Applicant further argues that the assertion that the specification fails to provide support for all features of the claimed subject matter is incorrect (remarks, page 7). This is not found convincing because the specification fails to provide antecedent basis for some of the claim limitations as stated above. To further clarify, a bulletized list has been provided, above. Applicant is referred to MPEP § 2173.03 for more information about the requirements of the specification in relation to the claimed subject matter.
Applicant argues that this feature is amended herein for clarification and now states: "depositing a layer of metal nanoparticles at a substrate, wherein the metal nanoparticles are isolated in the layer, and wherein the depositing is performed absent application of a wet layer immersing the substrate prior to the depositing of the layer of metal nanoparticles." These features are fully supported by the specification as filed, at least at pages 4, 5, 9, and 10 of the specification as filed, and in particular the paragraph at lines 24-31 of page 9 of the specification as filed (remarks, pages 8-9). This is not found convincing because the instant specification is entirely silent regarding a “wet layer”. Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. Any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. See MPEP § 2163 - § 2163.07(b) for a discussion of the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. See MPEP § 2173.05(i).
Applicant argues that Magdassi example 1 requires sintering by printing with an aqueous ink (remarks, page 13). Applicant argues that Magdassi example 2 requires use of a wet PDAC solution prior to depositing of silver NPs (remarks, page 13). Applicant argues that Magdassi example 3 requires pretreating with PDAC, which is a wet solution (remarks, page 13). Applicant further argues that Magdassi example 4 requires dispersion of NPs in a liquid solution (remarks, page 13). This is not found convincing because Magdassi teaches application techniques that do not require immersion of the substrate in a solution, as stated above.
Applicant argues that Magdassi fails to disclose "depositing a dry sintering layer at the substrate, wherein the metal nanoparticles are isolated in the layer, and wherein the depositing is performed absent application of a wet layer immersing the substrate prior to the depositing of the layer of metal nanoparticles (remarks, page 13). This is not found convincing because the term “dry sintering layer” is interpreted consistent with original claims 1, 3, 8, and 11 such that the dry sintering layer may include solvents, may be wet with liquid, and may require drying after deposition. Magdassi teaches application techniques that do not require immersion of the substrate in a solution, as stated above.
Applicant argues that Magdassi fails to disclose any sintering of two layers in the absence of immersion of the substrate in liquid (remarks, page 13). This is not found convincing because Magdassi teaches that “in embodiments where the substrate is pre-treated with NPs (pre-coated to obtain a film thereof), subsequent to NP film formation, the film is treated with a sintering agent and allowed to undergo sintering” (paragraph [0041]). Magdassi teaches that “in some embodiments, the pattern is formed by contacting the substrate with a solution comprising said NPs, said contacting being selected from coating, dipping, printing, ink-jetting, and by any other means” (paragraph [0067]; while dipping reads on immersing the substrate, the other cited application methods do not). Magdassi teaches that “the sintering is spontaneous and does not require external application of energy, e.g., heat” (paragraph [0049]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q2: 3/30-4/3/26; Q3: 6/22-6/26/26; Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733