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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coffey et al. (US 2010/112373 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Coffey discloses a method of forming a flexible electronic component, the method comprising: treating a flexible substrate (“stamp”: 300, 401, 421; and/or “substrate”) to increase a surface energy of the substrate to a specified surface energy (pars. 0065, 0198, 0233, 0267), the flexible substrate comprising a fluoroelastomer (pars. 0142, 0147-0148 and 0263); after the treating, printing, with an inkjet, a layer of conductive material (any of 206-220 or 474 and/or 476) onto the substrate (figs. 2 and 4F; pars. 0231, 0243, 0285 and 0294); after the printing, applying an encapsulant layer (“nanowire coating”) onto the substrate and the conductive material, the encapsulant layer comprising a fluoroelastomer (pars. 0110-0112, 0140 and 0191).
Regarding claim 2, Coffey discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the printing the layer of conductive material comprises printing a metallic ink (pars. 0029, 0107-0109, 0231, 0243 and 0285).
Regarding claim 3, Coffey discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the metallic ink comprises a silver nanoparticle-based ink (pars. 0029, 0102, 0107 and 0243).
Regarding claim 4, Coffey discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the encapsulant layer comprises fluorine kautschuk material (FKM) (carbon fluorine polymers are fluoroelastomers: pars. 0110-0112, 0140 and 0191).
NOTE: a fluorine kautschuk material (FKM) is understood in the art to be a broad and general term for fluoroelastomers, and not a single material.
PNG
media_image1.png
727
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Coffey discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the substrate, a thickness of the layer of conductive material, and a thickness of the encapsulant layer are such that a neutral axis of the flexible electronic component passes through the layer of conductive material (annotated fig. 2, right).
Regarding claim 8, Coffey discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the encapsulant layer and the substrate isolate the conductive material from external fluids (par. 0110).
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vrijens (CN 115777237 A; translation provided concurrently by Examiner; citations of page and line numbers below are directed to the translation provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 1, Vrijens discloses a method of forming a flexible electronic component (pg. 2, lines 17-19), the method comprising: treating a flexible substrate (4) to increase a surface energy of the substrate to a specified surface energy (pg. 4, lines 22-26), the flexible substrate comprising a fluoroelastomer (pg. 4, lines 11-13 and 35-38); after the treating, printing, with an inkjet, a layer of conductive material (2) onto the substrate (pg. 4, lines 1-6); after the printing, applying an encapsulant layer (3, *comprising: “coating”, and/or “elastomeric seal member” and/or “planar foil”, and/or “elastic sealing member”) onto the substrate and the conductive material, the encapsulant layer comprising a fluoroelastomer (pg. 4, lines 13-15, pg. 5, lines 4-12 and 18-29) (All steps of method: pg. 6, lines 3-10 and 14-30).
*NOTE: Vrijens discloses multiple names for a single encapsulant structure; however, all of the named elements for that layer are disclosed as being fluoroelastomers as cited above.
Regarding claim 2, Vrijens discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the printing the layer of conductive material comprises printing a metallic ink (pg. 4, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 4, Vrijens discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the encapsulant layer comprises fluorine kautschuk material (FKM) (e.g. PTFE: pg. 5, lines 4-7).
NOTE: a fluorine kautschuk material (FKM) is understood in the art to be a broad and general term for fluoroelastomers, and not a single material.
Regarding claim 5, Vrijens discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the substrate comprises FKM (e.g. fluorine elastomer: pg. 4, lines 35-38).
NOTE: a fluorine kautschuk material (FKM) is understood in the art to be a broad and general term for fluoroelastomers, and not a single material.
Regarding claim 7, Vrijens discloses the method of claim 1, wherein printing the layer of conductive material comprises printing the conductive material in an electronic circuit pattern (pg. 3, lines 5-8; pg. 4, lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 8, Vrijens discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the encapsulant layer and the substrate isolate the conductive material from external fluids (pg. 3, lines 26-33).
Regarding claim 9, Vrijens discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the treating comprises corona treating (pg. 4, lines 22-26).
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 of this title, 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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vrijens, in view of Remizov et al. (US 2010/0058585 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Vrijens discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Vrijens, however, does not explicitly disclose that after the treating, the specified surface energy is such that a contact angle between the conductive material and the substrate is less than 90.
Remizov teaches that it is well known to perform a similar method of forming an electronic component (Title; Abstract), the method comprising: treating (plasma treating) a substrate (110), the substrate comprising a fluoroelastomer (PTFE, FEP) (fig. 2; pars. 0028-0030 and 0034); after the treating, printing, with an inkjet, a layer of conductive material (130 and/or 140) onto the substrate (fig. 3; pars. 0032-0033 and/or 0036); wherein, after the treating, the specified surface energy is such that a contact angle between the conductive material and the substrate is less than 90° (45°) (fig. 3; par. 0038).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Vrijens to incorporate the preferred contact angle for the conductor of Remizov. First it is noted that this claim does not have any apparent impact on the actual steps of the method. The limitation of claim 10 is directed to the shape of the final product, but does not disclose any new step of the claimed process. POSITA would have realized that the desired contact angle can be easily and readily achieved by the well-known corona treatment of Vrijens to predictably result in a strong and resilient bond between the conductor and the substrate, thus reducing peeling and/or cracking when the flexible substrate is deformed during intended use. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special step (or any step at all) was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old method of Vrijens with the well-known contact angle effect of surface treatment of Remizov. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the concurrently mailed PTO-892, as all of those cited references are considered to be pertinent to the claimed invention. For example, Mikoshiba (US 2005/0064633 A1) is held to be of particular relevance to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey T Carley whose telephone number is (571)270-5609. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571)272-3460. 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.
/JEFFREY T CARLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729