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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/30/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 25-31, 33-35, and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 9183968) in view of Wang (CN 110461101). A machine translation of Wang is provided as an English equivalent and is used in the citations below.
Regarding Claims 1, 3, and 28, Li teaches a method for forming a conductive layer (abstract) comprising: depositing a metal nanowire ink onto an inert surface (col. 13 ln. 65-col. 14 ln. 10) to form a coating with a silver loading from about 1mg/m2 to about 200 mg/m2 (col. 15 ln. 35-40), the ink comprising from about 0.01 wt.% to about 4 wt. % metal nanowires and from about 0.05 wt. % to about 5 wt. % polysaccharide (col. 1 ln. 39-43; col. 10 ln. 58-60, col. 8 ln. 17-22); and drying the coating (col. 14 ln. 33-34) to form a conductive film having a sheet resistance is less than about 100 Ohm/sq and the coating has a %TT at least about 98.6% (col. 17 ln. 37-49; col. 16 ln. 48-52, col. 1 ln. 55-67). Li teaches a silver salt consisting of AgF (col. 9 ln. 31-65). Li teaches the inert surface is a surface of a polymeric substrate (col 13 ln. 65-col. 14 ln. 10). Li teaches the metal nanowire ink comprises from 0.001 mg/mL and about 2.0 mg/mL silver ions and wherein after drying a fused metal nanostructure network is formed (col. 21 ln. 59-61; col. 1 ln. 63-67).
Li teaches films that can be air dried can be desired in some embodiments (i.e. room temperature without application of heat, col. 14 ln. 33-34). Li does not explicitly teach blowing the air; however, blow-drying with room temperature air is known in the art (Wang, abstract). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the drying conditions of Li to include blowing air, as suggested by Wang, because it is a known drying method in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the film of Li with blow drying as in Wang.
Regarding Claims 6 and 37, Li teaches the sheet resistance is less than about 100 Ohm/sq or 50 Ohm/sq (col. 16 ln. 48-67). Li teaches the inert surface is a surface of a polymeric substrate (col 13 ln. 65-col. 14 ln. 10) including polymers exhibiting a glass transition temperature of 145 or less, e.g. PET.
Regarding Claims 25 and 33, Li teaches the metal nanowire ink further comprises aqueous solvent comprising 5-80 wt. % of the claimed alcohols (col. 8 ln. 62-col. 9 ln. 8). Li teaches from about 0.01-1 wt. % surfactant (col. 2 ln. 7-55). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select any of the concentrations of Li, including those within the claimed range, because Li teaches they are all suitable for use with the invention.
Regarding Claims 26-27, Li teaches alkyl cellulose (col. 11 ln. 1-5).
Regarding Claims 29-31, Li teaches diameters of no more than 250 nm (col. 8 ln. 40-46). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select any of the diameters of Li, including those within the claimed range, because Li teaches they are all suitable for use with the invention.
Regarding Claims 34-35, Li teaches non-ionic surfactant and a fluorinated surfactant (col. 12 ln. 32-55).
Regarding Claim 38, Li teaches a polymeric overcoat over the fused metal nanostructure network (col. 15 ln. 44-col. 16 ln. 21).
Regarding Claim 39, Li teaches patterning the fused metal nanostructure network to form an electrically conductive pattern (col. 4 ln. 61-col. 5 ln. 4).
Claim(s) 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 9183968) and Wang (CN 110461101) as applied to claims 1, 3, 6, 25-31, 33-35, and 37-39 above, and further in view of Yang (US 20160108256).
Regarding Claims 7 and 9, Li teaches the inert surface is a surface of a polymeric substrate and the substrate with the coating forms a conductive film exhibiting a percent total transmission of at least about 90%, a haze of less than about 1.0% (col 13 ln. 65-col. 14 ln. 10; col. 17 ln. 37-49; col. 17 ln. 58-63).
Li is silent as to the value of the color parameter b*; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to related art to determine a suitable value. Yang teaches nanoscale colorants introduced to adjust the hue of transparent conductive films wherein films can be made less yellow, i.e. smaller absolute value of b* ([0025]). Yang teaches a b* of less than about 1.0 ([0087]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Li to include a b*, as taught in Yang, because Yang teaches it is an adjustable and desirable optical property in transparent conductive films.
Claim(s) 32 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 9183968) and Wang (CN 110461101) as applied to claims 1, 3, 6, 25-31, 33-35, and 37-39 above, and further in view of Leschkies (US 20120164470).
Regarding Claims 32 and 36, Li teaches the nanowires can be silver, gold, indium, tin, iron, cobalt, platinum, palladium, nickel , cobalt, titanium, copper, and alloys thereof (col. 8 ln. 26-30). Li does not explicitly teach the silver nanowires have a noble metal coating; however, Leschkies teaches core-sheath nanowires with noble metal sheaths including platinum ([0010]) for applications in transparent electrically conductive films ([0029]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the nanowires of Li to include nanowires, as taught in Leschkies, because they are known nanowires for transparent electrically conductive films and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the coating of Li with nanowires as in Leschkies.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment and remarks, filed 7/30/2026, with respect to the previous Section 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as discussed above.
Applicant's other arguments filed 7/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues it is clear from Li that fusing had not been accomplished without the application of heat. Applicant argues a low temperature process does not mean a process carried out at room temperature and all coatings are heated in the examples of Li. Applicant argues there is no teaching or suggestion found in Li, that the fusing process could take place without the external energy. Applicant argues Li does not establish a reasonable expectation of success that thus does not render the present claims prima facie obvious. In response to Applicant's argument, Li teaches air drying, i.e. drying by contact with unheated air, as an alternative embodiment to a heat gun, oven, thermal lamp, or the like (col. 14 In. 31-34). Li teaches the fusing occurs at a low temperature and that any heat application for drying is incidental to the fusing (col. 14 In. 34-36). While Li teaches heat can be added to drive the drying, Li does not teach that heat is required for drying or fusing and clearly recognizes air drying as an alternative to heating. Li teaches the film is fused and has a sheet resistance of no more than about 1000 Ohms/sq (col. 1 In. 55-67) and does not teach that these properties are contingent on a heated drying step. Regarding the examples of Li which include heating, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). MPEP 2123 II.
Applicant argues the rejections of the dependent claims have the same deficiencies and that Yang and Leschkies do not cure the deficiencies; however, this is not convincing as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABATHA L PENNY whose telephone number is (571)270-5512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 5712721418. 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.
/TABATHA L PENNY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights