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 .
2. The Amendment filed July 6, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-7 and 9-17 are pending in this application, with claims 1-4 withdrawn from consideration as directed to a non-elected invention. Thus claims 5-7 and 9-17 are examined herein.
Rejections -- 35 U.S.C. 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 5-7, 9-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 105436517 (cited by Applicant in the IDS filed 9/6/2023, and its translation of record).
CN ‘517 is directed to a method for producing metal powder. The prior art method includes first adding a prepared dispersant solution to a reactor (see para [0012] of the translation of CN ‘517). This dispersant solution includes one or more of polyvinyl pyrrolidone (PVP) or Tween 40 (an ester), and a glycol such as polyethylene glycol or glycerol (see para [0015] of the translation), and thus CN ‘517 suggests use of a “polyol mixed solution” as recited in claim 5 as amended. A substance containing a metal compound is added, resulting in formation of nano-metal particles, equivalent to the claimed “nano-metal seed crystals”. An oxidant solution and a reductant solution are added simultaneously, stabilizing the newly generated nano-metal particles. The oxidant solution contains a metal nitrate (i.e. a “metal salt”); see para [0008] of the translation. After reaction is completed, the solution is discharged into a flocculation kettle and flocculant is added; see para [0013] of the translation. The mixture is allowed to settle and obtain metal spherical and quasi-spherical powders, i.e. “performing precipitation and separation to obtain the metal particle”. The metal salt can be silver nitrate, the seed crystals can be nano-metal silver particles, and the final powders are silver powders (see para [0037], [0039] and [0040] of the translation) and therefore the metal salt and the metal particle comprise the same metal as the seed crystals, in accord with claim 5 as amended.
With respect to claim 6, para [0021] of the translation indicates silver, copper and nickel are preferred in the prior art. With respect to claim 7, claim 6 of the translation indicates the particle size of the seeds is 1-800 nm, which includes the entirety of the presently claimed range. With respect to claim 9, the polyol in the dispersion may be polyethylene glycol or glycerol. With respect to claim 11, the reducing solution in the prior art may comprise hydrazine or an amine; see para [0014] of the translation. With respect to claims 12, 13 and 14, the dispersant in the prior art may include polyvinyl pyrrolidone (PVP); see para [0015] of the translation. With respect to claim 15, the flocculent in the prior art includes oleic acid; see para [0011] of the translation. With respect to claims 18 and 19, the dispersant may include substances such as a pyrrolidone or Tween 40 (an ester).
CN ‘517 does not specify that the seed crystals (or nano-metal particles) are themselves spherical or quasi-spherical as required by the instant claims, and does not specify the numerical limitations recited in claim 5 as amended or in claims 10 or 17. However:
a) The final metal particles obtained in the prior art are of that shape, so it is reasonable that those particles would have grown from smaller particles of an equivalent shape. Further, the term “quasi-spherical” has no set meaning, i.e. the term merely implies a shape somewhat like a sphere but is interpreted to include oblate spheroids or other non-spherical shapes within its scope. Note also that the actual materials used in making the seed crystals in the prior art appear to be largely the same as those employed by Applicant. Thus it is a reasonable assumption that the prior art method includes dispersing seed crystals of a shape as presently claimed.
b) With regard to the numerical limitations, the mere recitation of such limitations in an otherwise known process will not generally result in patentability of a claim directed to that process, absent evidence of criticality of the numerical limitation(s). In the present case, the numerical limitations do not appear to be critical to the invention. The ranges of the relative amounts of polyol and dispersant or surfactant in claim 5 (15-95 vol% and 5-85 vol% respectively) are so broad that they encompass the vast majority of all possible mixtures of those substances, such that it is likely that any given mixture will fall within the limitations of the claim. The range in claim 17, while narrower, cannot be said to be critical to the invention, at least for the reason it is recited solely in a dependent claim. Claim 10 (which is also a dependent claim) recites a range in which the low end and high end of the range differ by 2 orders of magnitude, and nothing in the record would indicate any particular relevance of a content of seed crystals being in that broad of a range.
Thus the disclosure of CN 105436517 is held to create a prima facie case of obviousness of a method as presently claimed.
5. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 105436517 (and its translation), as above, in view of any of Zeira (US 2003/0102024), Parce et al. (US 2012/0031486) or Adachi et al. (US 2011/0180139).
CN ‘517, discussed supra, does not disclose using particles obtained via the prior art method in a specific device as recited in the instant claim. Each of Zeira, Parce and Adachi indicates it was well-known in the art, at the time of filing of the present invention, to employ metal particles such as silver particles in a photovoltaic cell; see, for instance, Zeira para [0020], Parce para [0075] or Adachi para [0063]. Based on the disclosures of Zeira, Parce et al. or Adachi et al., once one has produced silver particles as done in CN ‘517, it would have been an obvious expedient to use those particles in a manner as presently claimed.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s remarks filed July 6, 2025 have been fully considered, with the following effect:
a) The examiner agrees that the claims as amended comply with 35 USC 112.
b) With respect to the rejection based on CN ‘517, Applicant suggests that the claimed limitations that are unspecified in the prior art are in fact critical in some manner, and quotes para [0013] of the specification. However, nothing in para [0013] suggests anything at all regarding criticality of a certain proportion of polyol to dispersant or surfactant. As to any specific cause-and-effect relationship, the specification states that “the proportion of metal particles having different types of cavities is related to the particle size distribution of the spherical nano-metal seed crystals”. However, none of the instant claims specify any types of cavities or any particle size distribution of seed crystals.
7. 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE WYSZOMIERSKI whose telephone number is (571) 272-1252. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm Eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks, can be reached on 571-272-1401. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, 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
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.
/GEORGE WYSZOMIERSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733 August 25, 2025
Prosecution Insights