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 .
Authorization for Electronic Communications
The Primary Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s authorization for electronic communications, filed 11/30/2023.
Priority
This application claims benefit of U.S. Provisional Application 63/429,029, filed 11/30/2022.
The Primary Examiner has carefully reviewed the provisional application. This application discloses only Ag-Cu core-shell nanowires and does not fully support the any and all core-shell nanowires encompassed by the scope of independent claim 1. Consequently, since none of the instant claims require an Ag-Cu core-shell nanowire, the effective filing date of claims 1-17 is 11/30/2023.
Drawings
The drawings filed 11/30/2023 are acceptable. See MPEP § 608.02(b)(I).
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 02/07/2024 has been considered by the Primary Examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 11/06/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 11/06/2025.
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 14 is 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.
In the last line of the claim, “the silver salt” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, 13, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kim et al., Junction-free Flat Copper Nanofiber Network-based Transparent Heater with High Transparency, High Conductivity, and High Temperature, Scientific Reports (2018) 8:13581.
Claim 1
Reference is made to the Experimental Section, specifically the Seed Layer Fabrication and Copper Electroless Deposition subsections at page 2. Kim teaches a process comprising:
depositing a liquid strand comprising an ink onto a substrate (electrospinning a polymer solution containing Pd ions onto a substrate);
transforming the liquid strand to a precursor strand (polymer decomposed and calcined in air at 500°C to form a seed layer for electroless deposition);
converting at least a portion of the precursor strand to a nanowire comprising a first metal (polymer decomposed and calcined in air at 500°C to form a seed layer for electrodeless deposition); and
coating the nanowire with a second metal to form a core-shell nanowire comprising a core and shell (copper electroless deposition on the Pd nanowire), wherein:
at least a portion of the transforming occurs during the depositing (here, decomposition and calcination as satisfying the claimed transforming and converting, in no particular order; since the polymer solution is in volatile DMF solvent, transforming and converting necessarily requires removing this solvent and at least partial removal of the solvent occurs in air – even if it is merely incidental – as the electrospinning occurs, thereby satisfying the claimed “at least a portion of the transforming occurs during depositing”), and
the core comprises the nanowire (Pd) and the shell comprises the second metal (Cu).
In the alternative, if the above-mentioned incidental evaporation of solvent does not read on the claimed transforming occurring during depositing, selecting electrospinning parameters such as environmental conditions, substrate temperature, relative humidity, to yield a liquid strand that can quickly and easily be converted into the Pd nanowire would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to enhance the efficiency of the deposition, decomposition, and calcination of the liquid strand into the Pd nanowire.
Claim 3
Kim teaches a glass substrate in the Seed Layer Fabrication subsection.
Claims 4-6
Kim teaches that the first metal is Pd and the second metal is Cu (i.e., the first metal is different than the second metal), as noted above.
Claims 7-8
Kim teaches that the polymer solution was prepared by adding 0.1 g/mL PVP and 0.03 g/mL (NH4)2PdCl4 to DMF and stirring at 600 rpm with a magnetic stirrer for 2h in the Seed Layer Fabrication subsection.
Claim 9
As noted above, Kim the polymer solution containing Pd is deposited by electrospinning.
Claim 10
Insofar as the ultimate result of Kim’s decomposition and calcination of the Pd-containing polymer is to at least remove solvent and polymer, Pd metal necessarily transfers to the surface of the precursor strand.
Claim 13
Kim teaches that decomposition and calcination takes place in air. To the extent that air is present and air is a gas, the limitations of this claim are satisfied.
Claim 16
Again, Kim teaches decomposition and calcination at 500°C in air.
Claim 17
As noted above, Kim teaches electroless plating of Cu.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kim et al., Junction-free Flat Copper Nanofiber Network-based Transparent Heater with High Transparency, High Conductivity, and High Temperature, Scientific Reports (2018) 8:13581, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of KR 20180053490 A.
The teaching of Kim is detailed above.
This reference does not teach that the Pd-containing precursor strand is exposed to UV, ozone, or plasma.
KR 490 teaches a process for making a transparent electrode on a transparent substrate by irradiating a Pd-containing precursor polymer in DMF with UV to reduce the metal ion to a metal and removal of a part of the polymer, followed by copper plating. See attached Clarivate Analytics translation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the process of Kim so as to utilize UV light (or any other suitable means) to achieve to substitute for calcination or in addition to calcination to achieve a transparent Pd nanowire prior to plating with Cu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so by the desire and expectation of successfully yielding a plated nanowire, at least, or a transparent nanowire.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kim et al., Junction-free Flat Copper Nanofiber Network-based Transparent Heater with High Transparency, High Conductivity, and High Temperature, Scientific Reports (2018) 8:13581, as applied to claim 13 above, further in view of CN 109686497 A.
The teaching of Kim is detailed above.
This reference does not teach the claimed exposure to hydrogen gas.
CN 497 teaches that metal-ion containing polymers similar to those of Kim can be calcined in air or with hydrogen (gas) reduction before being Cu plated. See attached Clarivate Analytics translation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the process of Kim so as to, instead of calcining in air, calcining in hydrogen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so by CN 497’s teaching that both calcining in air and calcining in air are suitable means for reducing the metal in the metal ion-containing polymer in preparation for subsequent Cu plating.
Claim(s) 2 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kim et al., Junction-free Flat Copper Nanofiber Network-based Transparent Heater with High Transparency, High Conductivity, and High Temperature, Scientific Reports (2018) 8:13581.
Claim 2
The teaching of Kim is detailed above.
This reference does not teach that the metals are the same.
Nevertheless, it is the Primary Examiner’s position that the method of Kim is robust such that any suitable metals can be utilized in order to give nanowires of a desired function. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have done so.
Claim 15
The teaching of Kim is detailed above.
This reference does not teach the use of an acid to depolymerize and/or decompose the polymer.
It is clear in the process of Kim, that removal of the polymer is essential to the production of the Pd nanowire. It is the Primary Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Kim so as to either substitute for, or use in conjunction with, the calcining, acid in order to assist with removal of the polymer. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so by the desire and expectation of successfully forming a Pd nanowire that can be plated with Cu.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 2014/073771 A1; KR 20090126825 A; and US 2011/0177332 A1 are representative of the prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM P FLETCHER III whose telephone number is (571)272-1419. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM - 5 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, Duane Smith can be reached at (571) 272-1166. 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.
WILLIAM PHILLIP FLETCHER III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/WILLIAM P FLETCHER III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
23 January 2026