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 .
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of improper grammar. The entire abstract is one run-on sentence. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are:
[003], “… soldering of the aluminum in the vehicle FPC…”
[005],“… conducive of high-tech fully automated process line.”
[023], “…laser sintering process has low pollution, low energy consumption, high efficiency, saving a lot of production costs and social resources”
[028], “…according to the actual need for the location of the solder welding connection can be silkscreen printing.”
[029], “The resin and other non-metallic components in the nickel paste will be rapidly decomposed and volatilized, and the melting point of nickel is above 1453°C, and finally the nano-nickel powder is covered in the aluminum surface”
[030], “… Again use CO2 laser or fiber laser to 200W to 500W continuous power irradiate…”
There are more instances of improper grammar in the specification beyond the ones listed above. A substitute specification in proper idiomatic English and in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b) is required. The substitute specification filed must be accompanied by a statement that it contains no new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, S1, “allocation of nickel pulp” and Claim 1, S2, “Smear nickel paste” renders the claim indefinite. While S1 specifies a pulp, S2 specifies a paste. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “paste” in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the term pulp is interpreted to be synonymous with paste.
Claim 1, S1, “nano” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “nano” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. To elaborate, there is no clear relation between the term “nano” and any characteristic dimension of the Ni powder (radius, diameter, width, etc.). Additionally, the term “nano” in of itself does not set a range of values for a characteristic dimension. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted as mixing in a nickel powder comprising of particles with a taught diameter/width in nanometers.
Claim 1, S4, “…to reapply a nanometer nickel powder aluminum sheet surface” renders the claim indefinite. It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and is replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Additionally, the title of S4, “Secondary Sintering”, conflicts with the teachings in the specification, which teaches that S3 decomposes and volatizes non-metallic components of an applied Ni paste [0029] and S4 brings the temperature of the remaining Ni powder above the Ni melting point [0030]. If S4 brings the Ni powder above the melting point, then by definition, it is not a sintering step. Therefore, it is unclear whether the claim outlines a sintering step or a melting step. For the purpose of examination, claim 1, S4 will be interpreted using a specified laser power to either sinter or melt any Ni left behind on an aluminum sheet after S3 was conducted.
Claim 2, “50%” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the percentage is by weight or by volume. For the purpose of examination, the taught value will be interpreted as a percentage by weight.
Claim 10, “wherein in S3” renders the claim indefinite. The temperature range disclosed in the claim correspond to values above the bulk melting point of Ni. However, S3 is described as a primary sintering process. If the Ni paste is being melted, then by definition, it is not being sintered. Therefore, it is unclear if claim 10 is mapped to a sintering step or a melting step. In the same vein, if S3 is not a primary sintering step, then there is no secondary sintering step as described in S4. If the temperatures disclosed in claim 10 are used in S3, any subsequent laser treatment steps are either the first instance of sintering in the method, or not considered sintering. For the purpose of examination, claim 10 is interpreted as converting S3 and S4 into melting steps. That is, S3 becomes the primary melting step, and S4 becomes the secondary melting step.
Dependent claims 3-9 are rejected as being dependent upon the rejected claims as discussed above.
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, 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 – 4 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lockett (US 10961408 B2) in view of Li (US 2012/0142140 A1), Friedberger (US 2022/0288690 A1), and Wang (“Influence of the properties of organic media in back-side silver pastes on the electrical performance of polycrystalline silicon solar cells”), as evidenced by Liu (“Effects of polyester resin molecular weight on the performance of low temperature curing silver pastes”).
Regarding Claim 1, Lockett teaches a method of fabricating a conductive film comprising (Col. 14 ln. 1-7):
printing a conductive ink on a substrate, the conductive ink comprising a Ni component and a polyester component; and
heat treating to cure the printed conductive ink.
It is well known in the art that polyesters are used as both a resin and a binder in metallic pastes (Liu Abstract). The Ni component comprises Ni flakes with a diameter between 1000 nm and 50 µm (Col. 2 ln. 1-3 & Clm. 2). Lockett also teaches that the ink can be printed on an Al foil. The ink can be printed on the Al foil via screen printing (Col 4. Ln. 45-52 & Col 14 ln. 9).
Lockett fails to teach sintering/melting of the printed Ni ink. Lockett is silent on how the ink is heat treated.
Li teaches a process for making electrical contacts on solar cells with Ni nanoparticle inks (Abstract). Li also discloses pastes as an alternative [0019]. The taught ink comprises Ni nanoparticles with a diameter less than 100nm and a binder [0020], and is made by mixing the components [0039]. While Li does not teach that the ink also comprises a resin, they teach that the ink/paste can also include solvents, viscosity modifiers, vehicles, dispersants, and/or other ingredients. Resin is widely known in the art as a vehicle/medium for conductive metal particles in metal pastes (Wang Abstract). The ink can also be printed on a substrate via screen printing [0019].
Additionally, Li teaches various heat treatment processes for the printed ink [0021-0024]:
a sintering process, where Ni nanoparticles are fused onto a substrate;
a curing process, where non-metallics are either evaporated, reacted or volatized away at elevated temperatures; and
a melting process, where Ni nanoparticles are melted.
The sintering process can be done via laser sintering at temperatures between 350OC and 600OC [0044]. While Li keeps the curing and sintering processes separate, a person having ordinary skill in the art knows that the non-metallics in the ink will volatize upon reaching the specified sintering temperature. In all, a person having ordinary skill in the art knows that the heat processes taught by Li can be used to conduct steps S3 and S4 in the instant application.
However, neither Lockett nor Li teach any laser power values used for sintering.
Friedberger teaches a method for manufacturing a component via selective laser sintering (SLS) or selective laser melting (SLM) of metal powders ([0016] and Clm. 10). The metal powder can be comprised of Ni ([0013] and Clm. 7). The method is conducted with laser powers between 200 - 300 W ([0008] and Clm. 2), which reads on the claimed laser powers of 15 – 200 W and 200 – 500 W. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(1).
In all, there is a sufficient overlap between the Lockett’s and Li’s ink compositions and printing methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to apply the sintering step of Li to Lockett’s printed NI ink on an Al substrate because there is a reasonable expectation that Li’s heating method will successfully heat treat Lockett’s ink.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to combine the teachings of Lockett and Li with the laser powers taught by Friedberg because the taught laser powers enable Li’s sintering step sintering of Lockett’s Ni nanoparticle ink to the taught aluminum substrate.
Regarding claim 2, Lockett teaches that an ink that comprises 35 – 65 wt% Ni (Clm. 4), which reads on the claimed ink comprising over 50 wt% Ni. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(1).
Regarding claim 3, Lockett discloses printed ink film thicknesses between 60 – 250 µm, or equivalently, 0.060 – 0.250 mm (col. 16 ln 50-58), which reads on the claimed coating thickness of 0.1 – 0.3 mm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(1).
Regarding claim 4, Friedberger teaches that the laser can be either a CO2 laser or a Yb fiber laser [0002].
Regarding claim 7, Li teaches the sintering process can be done via laser sintering at temperatures between 350OC and 600OC [0044]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(1).
Claims 5 – 6 and 8 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lockett (US 10961408 B2) in view of Li (US 2012/0142140 A1), Friedberger (US 2022/0288690 A1), and Wang (“Influence of the properties of organic media in back-side silver pastes on the electrical performance of polycrystalline silicon solar cells”) as evidenced by Liu (“Effects of polyester resin molecular weight on the performance of low temperature curing silver pastes”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Metelkova (“On the influence of laser defocusing in Selective Laser Melting of 316L”).
Regarding claims 5, 6, 8, and 9, Friedberger teaches “distances between the central lines of neighboring scan lines” of 130 - 150 µm (equivalently, 0.130 – 0.150 mm), which reads on the claimed scan line intervals of:
0.07 – 0.3 mm,
0.06 – 0.2 mm, and
0.15 mm.
Additionally, Friedberger’s taught laser powers, as discussed in claim 1, reads on the claimed laser powers of 200W and 300 W. Friedberger also teaches laser scan speeds of 800 - 1100 mm/s, which reads on the claimed speeds of: 200-1500 mm/s and 900 mm/s. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(1).
Neither Li, Lockett, nor Friedberger teach laser defocus values. Additionally, neither Li, Lockett, nor Friedberger teach laser scan speeds of 150 – 250 mm/s and 250 mm/s.
Metelkova teaches that adjusting the laser defocus can be used to adjust the volume and geometry of the melt pool at the layer interface during SLM. Particularly, changing the defocus adjusts laser spot diameter (Fig. 1), which in turn, affects the heat input (Eqns. 2-3). Metelkova also discloses data and micrographs showing a relationship between the melt pool width/depth and the laser defocus (Fig. 5 (a) & (b)).
While Metelkova teaches for SLM, a person skilled in the art knows SLS is a variant of SLM. For the case of SLS, defocus will affect the dimensions of a sintered region rather than that of a melt pool. Additionally, while Metelkova teaches for SLM of steel alloys, the effects of changing the laser defocus are independent of the metal used. Therefore, the teachings of Metelkova are applicable for SLS of other metals.
Of note is the teaching that positively defocused lasers results in shallower melt pool depths. When applying Metelkova’s teachings to laser sintering Ni onto an Al sheet, a person having ordinary skill in the art knows that using a positive laser defocus can prevent overheating of the Al sheet by modulating the depth of the sintered region.
Additionally, Metelkova discloses a relationship between the laser scan speed, laser power, and melt pool width/depth (Fig. 3). Metelkova uses speeds between 50 and 250 mm/s for experiments (Fig. 3 and pg. 163 col. 1 para. 1) and discloses speeds between 8 and 310 mm/s in the literature (pg. 162 col. 2 para. 1). Based on Metelkova’s teachings, a person having ordinary skill in the art would know to adjust the scan speeds, laser power, and laser defocus in order control the geometry of the sintered region. By extension, a person having ordinary skill in the art knows that the lower scan speeds in claims 8 and 9 can be utilized without overheating the Al sheet by adjusting other laser parameters. Claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result, which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Metelkova to the teachings of Li, Lockett, and Friedberger because adjusting the laser defocus and laser scan speed can aid in sintering the Ni onto an Al sheet without overheating and melting the Al in the process. See MPEP 2144.05 (II))
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lockett (US 10961408 B2) in view of Friedberger (US 2022/0288690 A1) and as evidenced by Liu (“Effects of polyester resin molecular weight on the performance of low temperature curing silver pastes”)
Regarding claim 1, S3 and S4 are interpreted as melting steps.
Lockett teaches a method of fabricating a conductive film comprising (Col. 14 ln. 1-7):
printing a conductive ink on a substrate, the conductive ink comprising a Ni component and a polyester component; and
heat treating to cure the printed conductive ink.
It is well known in the art that polyesters are used as both a resin and a binder in metallic pastes (Liu Abstract). The Ni component comprises Ni flakes with a diameter between 1000 nm and 50 µm (Col. 2 ln. 1-3 & Clm. 2). Lockett also teaches that the ink can be printed on an Al foil. The ink can be printed on the Al foil via screen printing (Col 4. Ln. 45-52 & Col 14 ln. 9).
Lockett fails to teach laser sintering/melting of the printed Ni ink. Additionally, Lockett is silent on heat treating the ink at temperatures exceeding the melting point of Ni.
Friedberger teaches a method for manufacturing a component via selective laser sintering (SLS) or selective laser melting (SLM) of metal powders ([0016] and Clm. 10). The metal powder can be comprised of Ni ([0013] and Clm. 7). The method is conducted with laser powers between 200 - 300 W ([0008] and Clm. 2), which reads on the claimed laser powers of 15 – 200 W and 200 – 500 W. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(1).
While Lockett is silent on the type of heat treatment used, it would be obvious for a person skilled in the art that the printed ink can be heat treated by melting it with a laser. Additionally, while Friedberger does not teach a secondary melting step in their SLM method, it would have been obvious to some having ordinary skill in the art to apply Friedberger’s method twice and expect an advantageous result (e.g., a better bonded Ni/Al interface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to combine the method of Lockett with the laser melting taught by Friedberger because the taught laser powers enable the melting of Lockett’s Ni nanoparticle ink onto the taught aluminum substrate
Regarding claim 10, the claimed range corresponds to temperatures above the melting point of Ni. Because Friedberger teaches melting of the Ni paste/powder, then it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to bring said paste/powder above its melting point, which would be greater than 1453O C.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAVIER FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-9130. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, KEITH WALKER can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/J.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights