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 § 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 2, 4, 8, and 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.
Claims 2, 4, 8, and 10 recite “wt%”, which causes confusion. What is the basis for these percentages? For the purposes of examination, the wt% is interpreted as based on the total amount of the washable conductive ink.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
A washable conductive ink comprises
chloroprene rubber resin
and conductive particles mixed in the chloroprene rubber resin,
wherein a chemical structure of the chloroprene rubber resin includes a linear structure and a nonlinear structure.
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, 2, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al. (US 20210355339 as listed on IDS dated December 19, 2023).
Regarding claim 1, Xiao et al. disclose a conductive ink in Sample S-5 comprising neoprene (another name for chloroprene rubber resin) and silver particles (Table 1, [0021-0027]).
Xiao et al. is silent on whether the chemical structure of the chloroprene rubber resin includes a linear structure and a nonlinear structure.
However, Xiao et al. teach the chloroprene rubber resin may be linear or crosslinked [0012], thereby reading on a chloroprene rubber having a linear and nonlinear structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a chloroprene rubber resin having a linear and nonlinear structure as taught by Xiao et al.
However, Xiao et al. is silent on if the conductive ink is washable as recited in the instant claim.
In view of the substantially identical conductive ink of Xiao et al., the conductive ink of Xiao et al will possess the claimed property because the ability to be washed is an inherent property. Because the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to Applicant to show otherwise. (See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).)
Regarding claim 2, Xiao et al. disclose the conductive ink comprises 23.58 g of silver, 6 g of chloroprene rubber resin, 0.75 g of tris(nonylphenyl)phosphite, 2 g of epoxidized oil, and 20 g of 2-ethylhexyl acetate (Table 1 [0021-0027]), equivalent to 11 wt% of chloroprene rubber resin and a content of the conductive particles is 3.9 times the content of chloroprene rubber resin and thereby lying within the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 6, Xiao et al. disclose the conductive ink of Example S-5 comprises silver (Table 1), thereby reading on the material of the conductive particles as recited in the instant claim.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al. (US 20210355339 as listed on IDS dated December 19, 2023) in view of Obrecht et al. (“Rubber, 4. Emulsion Rubbers. In Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry”).
The conductive ink of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 3, Xiao et al. is silent on the chloroprene rubber resin having a content of the linear structure is greater than a content of the nonlinear structure.
However, Obrech et al. teach chloroprene rubber typically comprises at least 88.5% of 1,4-trans addition, which is a linear structure, and at least 1.0% of 1,2 addition and 0.8% of 3,4 addition chloroprene units, which are nonlinear structures (Figure 2, Table 4, page 629), thereby reading on the content of the linear structure is greater than the content of the nonlinear structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the chloroprene rubber resin of Xiao et al. would also have a similar linear to nonlinear content as taught by Obrech et al.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al. (US 20210355339 as listed on IDS dated December 19, 2023) in view of Li et al. (US 20090242854) and Zhang et al. (US 20160152851).
The conductive ink of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 4, Xiao et al. disclose the conductive ink comprises 38.2 wt% of solvent 2-ethylhexyl acetate, calculated using the values from Table 1 and [0021-0027], thereby lying within the claimed range of the solvent.
Xiao et al. is silent on the Example S-5 comprises a dispersant as recited in the instant claim.
However, Xiao et al. teach in example 2 comprises 0.58 wt% of Solsperse 36000 which is a nonaqueous dispersant, thereby lying within the claimed range of the dispersant. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a dispersant in the amount as taught by Xiao et al.
Xiao et al. is silent on the conductive ink comprising a defoaming agent as recited in the instant claim.
Li et al. teach a conductive ink comprising metallic nanoparticles, polymeric dispersant, and a solvent (claim 1). Li et al. teach defoaming agent may also be added [0057]. Li et al. teach other additives may be present in an amount of about 1 wt% to about 5 wt% ‘[0033], thereby overlapping the claimed range. Xiao et al. also teaches a conductive ink wherein the binder may further comprise one or more additives to improve the stability of the ink [0012]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the defoaming agent in the amount taught by Li et al. to the conductive ink of Xiao et al. because defoaming agents are a well known additive in the conductive ink industry.
Xiao et al. are silent on the conductive ink comprising an adhesive as recited in the instant claim.
Zhang et al. teach an electrically conductive ink comprising at least one adhesive in amount of 0% to 20% by weight [0027], thereby overlapping the claimed range. Xiao et al. also teach the conductive may comprise additives to improve stability of the ink and/or deposited conductors before and/or after deposition of the ink on a substrate [0012]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add an adhesive in the amount taught by Zhang et al. to the conductive ink of Xiao et al. because adhesives are a well known additive in the conductive ink industry.
Regarding claim 5, Xiao et al. disclose the solvent used in the conductive ink formed from Example S-5 is 2-ethylhexyl acetate, which is an ester based solvent and thereby reading on the instant claim. Xiao et al also disclose a non aqueous dispersant as rejected in the rejection for claim 4 above, thereby reading on the instant claim.
Xiao et al. is silent on ta defoaming agent as recited in the instant claim.
Li et al. teach suitable defoaming agent includes BYK-052 [0061], which is a silicone free defoamer, thereby reading on the instant claim. Xiao et al. also teaches the conductive ink may further comprise one or more additives to improve the stability of the ink [0012]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a non-organosilicon defoaming agent as taught by Li et al. to the conductive ink of Xiao et al. because defoaming agents are a well known additive in the conductive ink industry.
Xiao et al. is silent on a reactive adhesive as recited in the instant claim.
Zhang et al. teach an electrically conductive ink comprising at least one adhesive, wherein the adhesive is a polyurethane resin among others [0027-0028]. Zhang et al. further teach the adhesive also comprise a curing agent that reacts with the adhesive [0038]. Therefore, Zhang et al. teaches the adhesive is a reactive adhesive, thereby reading on the instant claim. Xiao et al. also teach the conductive may comprise additives to improve stability of the ink and/or deposited conductors before and/or after deposition of the ink on a substrate [0012]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add an adhesive in the amount taught by Zhang et al. to the conductive ink of Xiao et al. because adhesives are a well known additive in the conductive ink industry.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al. (US 20210355339 as listed on IDS dated December 19, 2023) in view of Zhang et al. (US 20160152851).
Regarding claim 7, Xiao et al. disclose a conductive ink in Sample S-5 comprising neoprene (another name for chloroprene rubber resin) and silver particles (Table 1, [0021-0027]).
Xiao et al. is silent on the conductive ink comprising an adhesive as recited in the instant claim.
Zhang et al. teach an electrically conductive ink comprising at least one adhesive [0027], thereby reading on the instant claim. Xiao et al. also teach the conductive may comprise additives to improve stability of the ink and/or deposited conductors before and/or after deposition of the ink on a substrate [0012]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add an adhesive in the amount taught by Zhang et al. to the conductive ink of Xiao et al. because adhesives are a well known additive in the conductive ink industry.
However, Xiao et al. is silent on if the conductive ink is washable as recited in the instant claim.
In view of the substantially identical conductive ink of Xiao et al. in view of Zhang et al., the conductive ink of Xiao et al in view of Zhang et al. will possess the claimed property because the ability to be washed is an inherent property. Because the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to Applicant to show otherwise. (See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).)
Regarding claim 8, Xiao et al. disclose the conductive ink comprises 23.58 g of silver, 6 g of chloroprene rubber resin, 0.75 g of tris(nonylphenyl)phosphite, 2 g of epoxidized oil, and 20 g of 2-ethylhexyl acetate (Table 1 [0021-0027]), equivalent to 11 wt% of chloroprene rubber resin and a content of the conductive particles is 3.9 times the content of chloroprene rubber resin and thereby lying within the claimed ranges.
Xiao et al. is silent on the content of the adhesive in the conductive ink as recited in the instant claim.
Zhang et al. teach an electrically conductive ink comprising at least one adhesive in amount of 0% to 20% by weight [0027], thereby overlapping the claimed range. Xiao et al. also teach the conductive may comprise additives to improve stability of the ink and/or deposited conductors before and/or after deposition of the ink on a substrate [0012]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add an adhesive in the amount taught by Zhang et al. to the conductive ink of Xiao et al. because adhesives are a well known additive in the conductive ink industry.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al. (US 20210355339 as listed on IDS dated December 19, 2023) in view of Li et al. (US 20090242854).
Regarding claim 9, Xiao et al. disclose a conductive ink in Sample S-5 comprising neoprene (another name for chloroprene rubber resin) and silver particles (Table 1, [0021-0027]).
Xiao et al. is silent on the conductive ink comprising a defoaming agent as recited in the instant claim.
Li et al. teach a conductive ink comprising metallic nanoparticles, polymeric dispersant, and a solvent (claim 1). Li et al. teach defoaming agent may also be added [0057]. Xiao et al. also teaches a conductive ink wherein the binder may further comprise one or more additives to improve the stability of the ink [0012]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the defoaming agent of Li et al. to the conductive ink of Xiao et al. because defoaming agents are a well known additive in the conductive ink industry.
However, Xiao et al. is silent on if the conductive ink is washable as recited in the instant claim.
In view of the substantially identical conductive ink of Xiao et al. in view of Li et al., the conductive ink of Xiao et al. in view of Li et al. will possess the claimed property because the ability to be washed is an inherent property. Because the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to Applicant to show otherwise. (See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).)
Regarding claim 10, Xiao et al. disclose the conductive ink comprises 23.58 g of silver, 6 g of chloroprene rubber resin, 0.75 g of tris(nonylphenyl)phosphite, 2 g of epoxidized oil, and 20 g of 2-ethylhexyl acetate (Table 1 [0021-0027]), equivalent to 11 wt% of chloroprene rubber resin and a content of the conductive particles is 3.9 times the content of chloroprene rubber resin and thereby lying within the claimed ranges.
Xiao et al. is silent on the content of the defoaming agent in the conductive ink as recited in the instant claim.
Li et al. teach the defoaming agent as rejected in the rejection for claim 9 above. Li et al. teach other additives may be present in an amount of about 1 wt% to about 5 wt% ‘[0033], thereby overlapping the claimed range. Xiao et al. also teaches a conductive ink wherein the binder may further comprise one or more additives to improve the stability of the ink [0012]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the defoaming agent in the amount taught by Li et al. to the conductive ink of Xiao et al. because defoaming agents are a well known additive in the conductive ink industry.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA WU whose telephone number is (571)272-0342. The examiner can normally be reached M F 8 - 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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571) 272-1130. 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.
/ANDREA WU/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights