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 .
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 of this title, 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furusawa et al. (US 2003/0213614 A1), in view of Lanning et al. (US 11,127,941 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Furusawa discloses a method of forming a conductive pattern (Title; Abstract) comprising forming a conductive pattern (“conductive pattern”) by ejecting a liquid-state material containing conductive fine particles onto a porous base material (2: porous silica or alumina) having a first major surface (fig. 1: top, as viewed), an opposite second major surface(fig. 1: bottom, as viewed), and a plurality of side surfaces (fig. 1: at least left and right sides, as viewed) that connect the first major surface to the second major surface (fig. 1; pars. 0052 and 0054), wherein the conductive fine particles have an average particle size of 1 nm to 200 nm (1 nm to 100 nm: par. 0070), and the porous base material is formed of a single material (par. 0054: “at least one of porous silica [and] alumina”, the term “at least one” includes a reasonable interpretation that there is only one of the materials) with a plurality of *cavities (“fine voids”) that are positioned between the first major surface and the second major surface (fig. 1), and the porous base material includes *communication holes (others of the “fine voids”), an average diameter (8 nm to 50 nm or 3 nm to 10 nm: pars. 0055-0056) of the communication holes being less than or equal to the average particle size of the conductive fine particles (3 nm is less than all of 3.0001 nm to 100 nm). Furusawa, however, does not explicitly disclose that the porous base material includes communication holes through which the plurality of cavities are in communication.
*Note: though claimed in such a manner as to imply more structure, the disclosed “cavities and communication holes” are nothing more than cavities in a porous material which are connected to one another, the locations of connection between cavities being the “communication holes”. That is to say, the porous base material is porous according to the commonly understood definition and the “cavities and communication holes” are simply a means of renaming the connected pores of the porous material.
Lanning teaches that it is well known to perform a related method of forming a conductive pattern (Title; Abstract) comprising forming ejecting a liquid-state material containing conductive fine particles (lithium) onto a porous base material, wherein the porous base material is formed of a single material (col. 32, lines 27-32: “carbon-based particles 302… [and] carbon particles 304”, both 302 and 304 are formed of carbon) with a plurality of cavities (at 304) and includes communication holes (marked in annotated fig. 3, below) through which the plurality of cavities are in communication (figs. 1E, 3 and 4A; col. 32, lines 5-47).
PNG
media_image1.png
497
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Furusawa to incorporate the communication holes of Lanning. POSITA would have realized that a porous material would naturally have large and small openings therein by virtue of simply being porous. Though Furusawa does not explicitly disclose this limitation, it is obvious that the base material of Furusawa is similar if not effectively identical to that of Lanning and can be easily and readily interchanged with the porous material of Lanning to achieve the desired incorporation of conductive material therein. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special porous base material was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old method of Furusawa with the well-known cavities and communication holes of Lanning. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 2, Furusawa in view of Lanning teaches the method of claim 1 as detailed above, and Furusawa further discloses that a viscosity of the liquid-state material is from 1mPa•s to 10mPa•s (par. 0080).
Regarding claim 3, Furusawa in view of Lanning teaches the method of claim 1 as detailed above, and Furusawa further discloses that a surface tension of the liquid-state material is from 20 mN/m to 40 mN/m (par. 0077).
Regarding claim 4, Furusawa in view of Lanning teaches the method of claim 1 as detailed above, and Furusawa further discloses that the liquid-state material contains water (par. 0075).
Regarding claim 5, Furusawa in view of Lanning teaches the method of claim 1 as detailed above, and Furusawa further discloses that the porous base material is subjected to a liquid repellent treatment (par. 0066).
Regarding claim 6, Furusawa in view of Lanning teaches the method of claim 1 as detailed above, and Furusawa further discloses that a droplet volume of the liquid-state material ejected that is from 0.2 pl to 20 pl (4pl: par. 0128).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furusawa in view of Lanning, further in view of Yamamoto (US 2006/0116000 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Furusawa in view of Lanning teaches all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. The modified Furusawa, however, does not appear to teach that a nozzle diameter in an ejecting unit that ejects the liquid-state material is from 10 µm to 25 µm.
Yamamoto teaches that it is well known to perform a similar method (Title; Abstract) including ejecting a liquid-state material containing conductive particles, wherein a nozzle diameter in an ejecting unit that ejects the liquid-state material is from 10 µm to 25 µm (par. 0084).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the invention of Furusawa to incorporate the preferred diameter nozzle of Yamamoto. POSITA would have realized that Furusawa expressly discloses that the droplets deposited are no more than 25 µm, and thus would very likely and very easily have been deposited by a nozzle of diameter < 25 µm. A nozzle of such diameter can be easily and readily incorporated in the method of Furusawa to achieve the desired droplet size/volume. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special nozzle was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old method of Furusawa with the well-known nozzle diameter of Yamamoto. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furusawa in view of Lanning, further in view of Itaya et al. (US 2013/0286100 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Furusawa in view of Lanning teaches all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. The modified Furusawa, however, does not appear to teach that a droplet flying speed of the liquid-state material ejected is from 3 m/s to 15 m/s.
Itaya teaches that it is well known to perform a similar method including ejecting a liquid state material containing conductive particles using a liquid ejecting apparatus (pars. 0039 and 0050-0052), wherein a droplet flying speed of the liquid-state material ejected is from 3 m/s to 15 m/s (pars. 0009 and 0055).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the invention of Furusawa to incorporate the preferred droplet flying speed of Itaya. POSITA would have realized that droplets of any preferred speed can be easily and readily employed to achieve the desired pattern complexity or precision as well as manufacturing speed. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special droplet or droplet ejector was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old method of Furusawa with the well-known desired droplet speed of Itaya. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant has argued that the porous base material of Furusawa is not “a single material” as is newly claimed. Applicant has further asserted that Lanning does not cure this purported deficiency of Furusawa. Respectfully, neither of these arguments are compelling. The Applicant has apparently chosen to reinterpret the disclosure of Furusawa to suit their argument, however the argument ignores the explicit disclosure of Furusawa which states that the porous layer (2) “is preferably formed by applying at least one of silica, alumina and alumina hydrate particles”. It is well understood that the term “at least one” expressly and explicitly includes one. As such, an entirely reasonable interpretation is that Furusawa does disclose in no uncertain terms, one of silica and alumina. Further, Lanning also discloses that the porous layer is a single material, that being carbon. As such, both references disclose the argued new feature, though only one of the references is necessary to disclose this material choice. Moreover, the original disclosure of the instant application does not expressly state that the porous base material “is formed of a single material” as now claimed. Instead, the instant specification discloses “the base material 1 is a polyimide substrate having a porous structure” (par. 0022) and “the base material 91 is a plain polyimide substrate that is not surface-treated” (par. 0027). This is not the same as what is claimed, and verges on 112(a) new matter. Nonetheless, the Examiner has given the Applicant the benefit of the doubt regarding this new claim limitation and its support. It is well understood that polyimide is a polymer, which literally means a combination of plural, often different smaller molecules. As such, it is recommended that the Applicant amend claim 1 to instead recite “the porous base material is formed of polyimide”. Again, the Examiner is willing to give the benefit of the doubt and interpret the disclosure such that the term “plain polyimide” was intended to mean “only polyimide” or “solely polyimide” or the like. Whatever the case may be, as currently presented, all limitations of the argued claim have been shown to be taught by the prior art, as detailed above; and all arguments on the merits have been answered herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see Nukuda et al. (US 2017/0369665 A1).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jeffrey T Carley whose telephone number is (571)270-5609. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571)272-3460. 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.
/JEFFREY T CARLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729