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 .
Response to Amendment
Upon entry of the amendment filed on 09/25/2025, Claim(s) 14 is/are amended and Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are withdrawn. The currently pending claims are Claims 1-19.
Based on applicants’ remarks and amendments (e.g. the specific experimental variable), the 112 rejections are withdrawn. However, they are not found persuasive regarding the 102 and 103 rejections and the rejections are maintained.
Citation Notation
The following citations are made for the convenience of the reader:
Citations to Pre -Grant publications are made to paragraph number under the ¶ format. Citations to other publications are made under the format “1/2” or pp 1 are directed to column and line number or to a page - whichever is appropriate. It is noted that any reference to a figure or a table is also directed to any accompanying text in the specification or the document. Notwithstanding those citations, the reference(s) is (are) relied upon for the teachings as a whole.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oh (KR-20160126187-A, a machine translation was provided).
Oh discloses a conductive ink with copper nanowires having a diameter range of 30-60 nm and water (abs, pg. 10 and water).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Song (CN-111748243-A, a machine translation was provided).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5: Song discloses a conductive ink with copper-nickel core shell nanowires and water (abs, examples).
Claims 8, 9, 12, 14-16: Song discloses a method of making a conductive ink with contacting copper salt, a nickel salt, an aliphatic amine such as ETDA and diethylhydroxylamine, glucose and water, stirring and heating at various temperatures such as 37 0C for 2 hours (abs, pg. 2, 3 and examples).
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsiao (US-20200272263-A1).
Hsiao discloses a conductive ink with water, copper nanowires having a diameter less than 50 nm and HPMC (¶39).
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) 8-11 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh.
Oh discloses a method of making a conductive ink comprising the steps of mixing copper chloride, HAD, glucose and water in a reactor at various loading amounts, stirring and heating at 80-120 0C for 6-24 hours (abs, pg. 3 and examples). The Oh reference discloses the claimed invention with the various components at various loading amounts but does not disclose the method with the specific components with enough specificity to anticipate the claimed invention. Nevertheless, given that Oh discloses a similar method, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the chemical art at the time of the invention to utilize any of the taught components since Oh teaches each one. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pursue the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success since the reference is directed to a similar field of endeavor. It is also noted that the fact that many components are disclosed would not have made any of them, such as the copper chloride, HAD, glucose and water, less obvious. Here, Oh discloses each of the claimed components in a similar step and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection of the claimed components/steps would be repugnant to a skilled artisan. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
The Oh reference discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the claimed concentration/loading ranges. It is noted that the claimed concentration/loading range is construed as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result. Given that the Oh reference discloses a similar method with similar starting material and experimental variables to achieve a similar end-product, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization such as varying the amounts of the starting material, the heating temperature via a thermostat knob or length of time of a reaction, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize known variables since the reference also discloses a similar end-product achieved via a similar synthetic route. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection or optimization of the claimed components/steps would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song.
The Song reference discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the claimed concentration/loading ranges. It is noted that the claimed concentration/loading range is construed as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result. Given that the Song reference discloses a similar method with similar starting material and experimental variables to achieve a similar end-product, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization such as varying the amounts of the starting material, the heating temperature via a thermostat knob or length of time of a reaction, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize known variables since the reference also discloses a similar end-product achieved via a similar synthetic route. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection or optimization of the claimed components/steps would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh as applied to claims above, and further in view of Kawasaki (Conductive Inks for Printed/Flexible Electronics. Nanomaterials 2020, 10, 1689).
Claims 5, 12 and 13: The Oh reference discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the feature of encapsulating the copper nanowire with a metal/nickel shell. It is noted that the Oh reference discloses capping/passivating the copper nanowires and the claim(s) call(s) for a nickel capping shell. In an analogous art, the Kawasaki reference discloses that capping the copper with various components such as a nickel shell via the addition of nickel chloride at various loading amounts is well known to gain the benefit of protecting the copper in an aqueous ink dispersion (abs, Tables 2, 3 and 6 with accompanying text, pg. 19-21, 37). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Kawasaki to the teachings of Oh would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the cited references shows the ability to apply such features into similar systems, methods and compositions for the benefit gain of enhancing the protection of the copper. See MPEP 2143. Further, it is noted that obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the substitution would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Claim 6: Oh and Kawasaki discloses a shell thickness of 10 nm (Kawasaki: pg. 19-21).
Claim(s) 3, 6, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song as applied to claims above, and further in view of Kawasaki.
The Song reference discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the structural dimension of the core-shell nanowires and the HDA agent. It is noted that the Oh reference discloses capping/passivating the copper nanowires and the claim(s) call(s) for specific agent and structural size. In an analogous art, the Kawasaki reference discloses that HDA agent and the structural dimension of the nanowires and shell and the optimization of the experimental variables are well known to gain the benefit of enhancing the protection and conductivity of the copper nanowires in the aqueous ink dispersion (abs, Tables 2, 3 and 6 with accompanying text, pg. 4-5, 19-21, 37). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Kawasaki to the teachings of Song would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the cited references shows the ability to apply such features into similar systems, methods and compositions for the benefit gain of enhancing the protection of the copper nanowires. See MPEP 2143. Further, it is noted that obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the substitution would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh or Song as applied to claims above, and further in view of Hsiao.
The disclosure(s) of Oh, Song and Hsiao is/are relied upon as set forth above.
The Song or Oh reference discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the HPMC agent. It is noted that the Oh or Song reference discloses the addition of known agents in the ink and the claim(s) call(s) for specific HPMC component. In an analogous art, the Hsiao reference discloses that HPMC agent is well known to gain the benefit of enhancing the dispersion of the nanowires in the aqueous ink (abs, ¶39). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Hsiao to the teachings of Song or Oh would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the cited references shows the ability to apply such features into similar systems, methods and compositions for the benefit gain of enhancing the dispersion of the copper nanowires. See MPEP 2143. Further, it is noted that obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the substitution would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references are not applicable based on the effective filing date of January 27, 2020 – see Li et al (pg. 4-6).
The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the priority date based on the ADS (filed on 07/26/2023) is 01/27/2021 (the date of the PRO 63142487) and that the cited references are not from the inventor or joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor – thus, the cited references are available as prior art references and the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
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 TRI V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuthers can be reached at 571.272.7026. 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.
/TRI V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764