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 .
Drawings
The Drawings filed 25 January 2024 are approved by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner and an initialed copy is attached.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 16 February 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 16 February 2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO-2022010309-A1, a translation is provided).
Claims 1, 4, 9 and 10: Kim discloses a composite with 1-90 pbw of silver nanorods and a polymeric binder (abs, pg. 1, 8, 13 and examples). Further, Kim discloses the nanorods having L=500nm to 15 microns and an aspect ratio of 20-80 – it is noted that the structural dimension meets the claimed nanowire limitation (pg. 3, 6 and 8). The Kim reference discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the claimed loading amounts and size ranges. Given that the Kim reference discloses loading amounts and size ranges that overlap with the presently claimed range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize any of the taught values, including those presently claimed, to obtain a suitable composition. According to MPEP 2131.03 and MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the portion of the prior art's range which is within the range of applicant's claims because it has been held to be obvious to select a value in a known range by optimization for the best results. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the loading and size variables with the benefit gain of enhanced conductivity and mechanical integrity parameters of the composite. 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 would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Claims 2 and 3: Regarding the claimed conductivity/resistivity property, if a prior art reference teaches the substantially identical structure/material/product, it would be reasonable that the same function and/or property would be imparted or exhibited. See MPEP 2112.01. Applicant is welcomed to provide any evidence that the disclosed material is exceedingly different from the claimed material - thus the claimed properties would inevitably not be present. Here, it is noted that Kim discloses a line resistance of less than 5 MOhm/cm (pg. 3 and 6).
Claims 5 and 6: Kim discloses various polymeric binder such as cellulose, urethane and acrylic resins (pg. 3 and 6).
Claim 7: Kim discloses the crosslinking agent and viscosity modifiers being optional (pg. 13).
Claim(s) 1-4, and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong (CN-107502017-A, a translation is provided).
Claims 1, 6 and 8-10: Dong discloses a composite with 80-95 wt.% of nano silver wires and a polymeric binder/matrix (abs, pg. 3 and 4). Further, Dong discloses the nanowires having L=80-100 nm, a D=20-30 microns – thus resulting in an aspect ratio of 200-375 (pg. 3 and 4). The Dong reference discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the claimed loading amounts. Given that the Dong reference discloses loading amounts that overlap with the presently claimed range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize any of the taught values, including those presently claimed, to obtain a suitable composition. According to MPEP 2131.03 and MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the portion of the prior art's range which is within the range of applicant's claims because it has been held to be obvious to select a value in a known range by optimization for the best results. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the loading and size variables with the benefit gain of enhanced conductivity, compatibility and mechanical integrity parameters of the composite. 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 would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Claims 2 and 3: Regarding the claimed conductivity/resistivity property, if a prior art reference teaches the substantially identical structure/material/product, it would be reasonable that the same function and/or property would be imparted or exhibited. See MPEP 2112.01. Applicant is welcomed to provide any evidence that the disclosed material is exceedingly different from the claimed material - thus the claimed properties would inevitably not be present.
Claim 4: Dong discloses the polyacrylate polymer (abs).
Claim 7: Dong does not require any crosslinking agents and viscosity modifiers.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hu (US-20190172600-A1).
The Kim reference discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the diameter and aspect ratio ranges. It is noted that the Kim reference discloses silver nanorods and is open to optimize the structural characteristics and the claim(s) call(s) for specific structural dimensions. In an analogous art, the Hu reference discloses that the feature of silver nanowires having the claimed diameters and aspect ranges in a composite is well known in the art (abs, ¶ 3-7, 51-52, 65-71, 91-100). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Hu to the teachings of Kim 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 enhanced opto-conductivity, compatibility and mechanical integrity parameters. 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/implementation would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hu (US-20190172600-A1).
The Dong reference discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the claimed polysaccharide polymeric binder. In an analogous art, the Hu reference discloses that the feature of silver nanowires having the claimed diameters and aspect ranges in a composite with a polymeric binder such as a polyacrylate and polysaccharide polymer is well known in the art (abs, ¶ 3-7, 51-52, 65-71, 91-100). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known polymeric binder of Hu to the teachings of Kim 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 enhanced opto-conductivity, compatibility and mechanical integrity parameters. 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/implementation would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights