DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed 11/20/2025 has been entered. Currently, claims 1 and 5-11 are pending and claims 2-4 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai (JP 2004-055363), machine translation included.
With regard to claims 1, 5, 9 and 10, Hirai discloses a method of forming a transparent conducting film that can be formed in a pattern [0001]. The method includes inkjet printing a colloidal dispersion onto a polycarbonate substrate, which reads on applicants’ conductive ink applied onto a base material, and then baked with UV laser irradiation [0016], [0018] and [0021]. UV laser light of 308 nm may be used [0025]. Since the ink is printed on a polycarbonate substrate, this means the polycarbonate substrate reads on the functional limitations of being a base material for a print substrate [0021] and [0025]. The dispersion medium of the colloidal dispersion ink reads on a liquid component [0013]. According to Hirai, the laser beam is focused onto the colloidal dispersion film and is absorbed by one of the components in the colloidal solution and heat is not used [0018]. The metal hydroxide generated from a metal salt and aqueous ammonia reads on applicants’ metal complex derived from an amine as claimed [0011].
All of this disclosure means the liquid components of the colloidal dispersion were intrinsically not removed prior to irradiating with UV laser radiation; hence, the method of Hirai will intrinsically have a content of liquid component of the conductive ink at a time when the UV irradiation begins of 5% by mass or more as claimed. Hirai also teaches inkjet printing a colloidal dispersion ink and then irradiating the ink with UV radiation [0025]; however, he does not specifically teach a time between inkjet printing and UV irradiation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have made the time between the inkjet printing landing on the substrate and UV irradiation be any amount, including 10 second or less, so that the pattern can be formed quickly and increase the throughput of electrode formation. A shorter time of manufacture would have been obvious as it would then save costs in manufacturing.
With regard to claims 6 and 7, Hirai teaches that the transparent conductive film can be from 0.01 to 10 microns, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.5 microns or less [0017]; however, they do not specifically teach applying further conductive ink layers with the thickness claimed.
Since the thickness of the conductive film pattern overlaps with the range claimed, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Also, it is noted that a further conductive ink being printed on the first formed conductive layer represents a mere duplication of parts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to have merely duplicated the conductive film pattern of Hirai by inkjet printing further conductive inks on the previously formed layer to make the conductive film pattern thicker.
With regard to claim 8, an underlayer may be formed between the substrate and the transparent conductive film [0022]. The underlayer can be formed by dissolving a curable resin in a solvent and then spin coating, extrusion coating or bar coating, which reads on applicants’ applying an insulating ink on the base material by a dispenser coating method and curing said insulating material as the resins disclosed will inherently be insulating [0023].
Claims 1, 5 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 2014/0178601).
With regard to claims 1, 5 and 9-11, Wei et al. teach forming a conductive traces by depositing a conductive ink composition on a substrate by ink jet printing, which reads on applicants’ base material for a print substrate [0036]-[0037]. After the deposition, the conductive ink is dried by subjecting it to an external energy source, which may be UV [0038]. Ultraviolet light will inherently have a peak wavelength of 400 nm or less as this is where the ultraviolet spectrum begins. The conductive ink can contain a silver carboxylate, which reads on applicants’ metal salt, or a silver oxalate that has been reacted with octylamine, which reads on applicants’ metal complex derived from an amine [0028], [0041] and [0044]. Wei et al. teach inkjet printing the conductive ink and then irradiating the ink with an external energy source that may be UV radiation to dry it [0038]; however, he does not specifically teach a time between inkjet printing and UV irradiation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have made the time between the inkjet printing landing on the substrate and UV irradiation be any amount, including 10 second or less, so that the pattern can be formed quickly and increase the throughput of electronic circuit formation. A shorter time of manufacture would have been obvious as it would then save costs in manufacturing.
Since the application of energy is drying the ink, this means that there will intrinsically be a content of liquid greater than 5% by mass or more when the UV irradiation begins relative to the time when the ink is applied on the base material.
Claim 6-8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 2014/0178601) in view of Hirai (JP 2004-055363).
Wei et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 1; however, they do not specifically teach an insulating ink layer between the base substrate and applying further conductive ink layers with the thickness claimed.
Hirai teaches inkjet printing a circuit pattern of a transparent conductive film on a substrate [0017]. Hirai teaches that the transparent conductive film can be from 0.01 to 10 microns, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.5 microns or less [0017]. Hirai also teaches an underlayer formed between the substrate and the transparent conductive film [0022]. The underlayer can be formed by dissolving a curable resin in a solvent and then spin coating, extrusion coating or bar coating, which reads on applicants’ applying an insulating ink on the base material by a dispenser coating method and curing said insulating material as the resins disclosed will inherently be insulating [0023].
It is noted that a further conductive ink being printed on the first formed conductive layer represents a mere duplication of parts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to have merely duplicated the conductive film pattern of Wei et al. by inkjet printing further conductive inks on the previously formed layer and drying them with UV to make the conductive film pattern thicker. It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have made the thickness of each layer of the conductive pattern any amount, including an average thickness of 0.01 to 1.5 microns as taught in Hirai, such that the conductive pattern had the proper amount of conductivity, while not being so thick as to waste materials.
Lastly, it would have been obvious to one have ordinary skill in the art to have combined in the underlayer of Hirai into the structure of Wei et al. The results of such a combination would have been predictable to one having ordinary skill; further, each of the elements would have performed the same in combination as they had separately. The rationale to have added is to improve the flatness of the substrate on which the printing is performed [0022].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 11/20/2025, with respect to the 102 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The relevant rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that neither Wei nor Hirai disclose or teach the technical idea of sintering while the liquid component of the conductive ink remains.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that he explained in the previous Office action how Wei and Hirai intrinsically teach a content of liquid component when UV irradiation begins being 5% by mass or more with respect to a content of the liquid component when the ink is applied onto the base material. Applicants have not particularly pointed out how the Examiner erred in his factual findings, and therefore the Examiner maintains that Wei and Hirai intrinsically teach this feature for the reasons noted above.
Additionally, the Examiner notes that “sintering” is not present in the present claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 GERARD T HIGGINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6pm (variable one work-at-home day).
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Gerard Higgins/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785