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 .
This action is responsive to amendments filed on 12/23/2025.
Claims 1-19 and 70-77 are pending. Claims 74-77 are new. Claims 14 and 15 are allowable.
The rejections of Claim(s) 1-8,10-13,16-19 and 70-73 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2017/0058152 (US ‘152) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s remarks.
The rejections of Claim(s) 1-8,10-13,16-19 and 70-73 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2014/140430 (WO ‘430) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s remarks.
Claim(s) 1-8,10-13,16-19 and 70-73 is/are stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US ‘152.
Claim(s) 1-8,10-13,16-19 and 70-73 is/are stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO ‘430.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, while the Applicants address the 102 rejection, the Applicants do not specifically traverse the 103 rejection reasoning and therefore the rejections are maintained.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8,10-13,16-19,70-73,77 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US ‘152.
As to Claim 1, US ‘152 discloses an adhesive composition comprising a base metal core and shells made of silver and tungsten alloys (pgs. 7-8, Claims 10 and 16).
The reference fails to disclose the use of an alloy wherein the second element in the alloy forms a grain boundary.
As to the difference, US ‘152 discloses the second shell can be made of metals including silver and tungsten as well as alloys thereof (pg. 8, Claim 16). The Examiner notes the instant claim 13 as defining silver tungsten alloys as meeting the claimed limitation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize metal selection for the purposes of improving the properties of conductive adhesive through routine experimentation for best results. As to optimization results, a patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of result effective variables when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,276,205 USPQ 215,219 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Woodruff 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and In re Aller, 220 F2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that similar properties of element segregation would be derived from the similar materials due to the prior art elements being the same as the claimed elements.
As to Claims 2 and 3, see discussion in regards to similarity of properties of expected from the use of similar materials in the prior art.
As to Claims 4 and 5, the base metal core can be copper (pg. 8, Claim 11).
As to Claims 6 and 7, see discussion of Claim 1 above.
As to Claim 8, the adhesive composition of the prior art can further contain solvents (para. 0019) used in solution processing methods (para. 0031).
As to Claim 9 and 10, US ‘152 discloses the composition can further contain polymer matrices (para. 0019).
As to Claims 11 and 12, the core shell particle can have D50 particle sizes of 100 nm to 100 micron (para. 0015).
As to Claim 13, see discussion of Claim 1 above.
As to Claims 16-19 and 70, see discussion of Claims above.
As to Claims 71-73, the composition can be used for a variety of devices (para. 0036).
As to Claim 77, US ‘152 disclose particles that have a core and one oxidation resistant shell and optional additional layers (para. 0007) thus discloses a single layer shell particle. This shell can form alloys which the Examiner respectfully submits would possess grain boundaries as required by Claim 1 as alloys are generally polycrystalline materials.
Claim(s) 1-8,10-13,16-19 and 70-73 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO ‘430.
As to Claim 1, WO ‘430 discloses a core shell particle wherein the core is copper (pg. 6, line 5) and the outer shell is a conductive metal (pg. 6, lines 12-13) wherein the electrically conductive metal can be an alloy of silver (Ag) and tungsten (W) (pg. 25, Claim 12).
The reference fails to disclose the use of an alloy wherein the second element in the alloy forms a grain boundary.
As to the difference, WO ‘430 discloses a core shell particle wherein the core is copper (pg. 6, line 5) and the outer shell is a conductive metal (pg. 6, lines 12-13) wherein the electrically conductive metal can be an alloy of silver (Ag) and tungsten (W) (pg. 25, Claim 12). The Examiner notes the instant claim 13 as defining silver tungsten alloys as meeting the claimed limitation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize metal selection for the purposes of improving the properties of conductive adhesive through routine experimentation for best results. As to optimization results, a patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of result effective variables when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,276,205 USPQ 215,219 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Woodruff 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and In re Aller, 220 F2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that similar properties of element segregation would be derived from the similar materials due to the prior art elements being the same as the claimed elements.
As to Claims 2-7, see discussion of similarity and types of materials used in Claim 1 discussion above.
As to Claim 8, the composition can be in the form of an ink with a solvent present (pg. 21, lines 23-28) which the Examiner construes as particles dispersed in solution.
As to Claim 10, the particles can be used in polymers (pg. 22, line 21).
As to Claims 11 and 12, the core particle can have diameters of less than 1-4 microns (pg. 24, Claim 5).
As to Claim 13, see discussion of Claim 1 above.
As to Claims 16-19 and 70, see discussion of claims above.
As to Claims 71-73, WO ‘430 discloses device embodiments (pg. 30, Claims 46-50).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US ‘152 in view of WO 2012/133627 (WO ‘627) citing a machine translation.
As to Claim 9, US ‘152 discloses a variety of solvents for the composition including ketones, toluene and ethanol (para. 0056), however, fails to disclose the use of ethylene glycol.
As to the difference, WO ‘627 discloses a paste comprising a silver coated copper particle dispersed in a paste for use in a related art of conductive adhesives (pg. 4, midway of the page) wherein the solvents used in the paste can be ethanol, toluene and glycols such as ethylene glycol (bottom of pg. 7).
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the solvents of US ‘152 with the glycol of WO ‘627 as substitution of art recognized equivalents is within the level of the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14,15,74,75 and 76 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Specifically, none of the prior art discloses the specific alloys as required by claims 14,15,74 or 75 or the specific structure of a silver-containing, alloy-forming shell directly attached to the core as required by Claim 76, nor is there any teaching, suggestion or motivation to modify the art of record to arrive at the claimed subject matter.
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 JAISON P THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-8917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 am-3:30 pm 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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/J.P.T/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/jt/ 1/21/2026
/MARK KOPEC/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762