DETAILED ACTION
The following Office action concerns Patent Application Number 18/053,824. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 17-22 are pending in the application. Claims 17-22 have been withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to non-elected inventions.
The applicant’s amendment filed June 23, 2026 has been entered.
The previous grounds of rejection are withdrawn in light of the applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 112 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
(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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed. In particular, the limitation “in accordance to ASTM D2196,” which was added by amendment, is not supported by the specification. MPEP § 2163(II)(A)(3)(b).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) because the term “spindle #2 at 20” is indefinite. It is unclear what is required by the term “spindle #2 at 20.”
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 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, 2, 4-6, 8, 13, 14 are rejected under 335 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence et al (US 2003/0151028) in view of Davies et al (US 2005/0096409).
Lawrence et al teaches a conductive ink comprising carbon black, graphite, resin and solvent (par. 25, 32, 35). The resin includes nitrocellulose (par. 25). The amount of carbon black is 10-35 wt % based upon the total binder resin weight (par. 29). The amount of graphite is 5-60 wt % based upon the total binder resin weight (par. 31). The corresponding weight ratio of graphite to carbon black includes 60:30 or 2:1. The solvent includes ethanol (par. 35). The amount of conductive particles is 10-90 % of total binder resin weight (par. 29). The amount of nitrocellulose resin is up to 30 % of total binder resin weight (par. 25). Using 60 % conductive particles and 30 % nitrocellulose resin gives a ratio of conductive particles to resin of 2:1. The ink is used to make a conductive film having a thickness of 2 µm (par. 39).
Lawrence et al teaches a conductive ink as described above. Lawrence et al does not teach the amount resin in the ink, the specific surface areas of carbon black and graphite, the amount of conductive particles in the ink, and the amount of solvent in the ink.
However, Davies et al teaches a conductive ink comprising graphite, carbon black, binder resin and solvent (abstract; par. 15, 22). In an embodiment, the amount of binder resin is about 12-15 % by weight in the composition (par. 27). The graphite has a surface area of 12 m2/g (par. 16). The carbon black has a surface area of 20-1000 m2/g (par. 15). The ink is used to make a conductive film (par. 25).
Combining the amount of resin from Davies et al with the ratio of conductive particles to binder resin of Lawrence et al (10-90 %) gives an amount of conductive particles of about 1.2-13.5 % by weight in the composition. By subtraction of resin and conductive particles, the amount of solvent in the ink is about 71.5-87 % by weight.
Lawrence et al and Davies et al are both directed to conductive inks containing resin, graphite and carbon black. Since Lawrence does not teach the amount of resin or the specific surface areas of the conductive particles, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by design need to combine those properties from Davies et al with the ink of Lawrence et al in order to obtain a resin amount and particle surface areas known to be suitable for a conductive ink.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence et al (US 2003/0151028) in view of Davies et al (US 2005/0096409) and Overbreek et al (US 2010/0140564).
Lawrence et al in view of Davies et al teaches a conductive ink as described above. Lawrence et al in view of Davies et al does not teach the viscosity of the ink.
However, Overbreek et al teaches a conductive ink which is applied by gravure printing (par. 13). The viscosity of the ink for gravure printing is 50-1000 mPa·s at 20 °C (par. 131). The claimed viscosity is obvious in view of the prior art viscosity range.
Lawrence et al teaches printing the ink by gravure printing (par. 45). Overbreek et al teaches an ink for gravure printing having a viscosity of 50-1000 mPa·s at 20 °C (par. 131). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by design need to combine the viscosity of Overbreek et al with the ink of Lawrence et al in view of Davies et al in order to obtain a suitable viscosity for printing.
Response to Arguments
The previous grounds of rejection are withdrawn in light of the applicant’s amendment.
The applicant argues that Davies does not teach the claimed solvent. However, Lawrence et al is relied upon for teaching an ethanol solvent, which is one of the claimed solvents.
Conclusion
The 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Examiner’s Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William Young whose telephone number is (571) 270-5078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 PM.
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 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./WILLIAM D YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 July 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights