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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1- Claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 22 June 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 10-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected paste composition, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted between 09 January 2024 and 21 May 2026 were considered by the examiner. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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.
Claim 2 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.
Claim 2 claims that the metal nanowire has an aspect ratio of 5 to 100. Aspect ratio could represent the ratio of the nanowire’s length to its diameter. Aspect ratio could also represent the ratio of the shorter dimension to the longer dimension of the cross-section of the nanowire. It is unclear if the aspect ratio of claim 2 is referring to one of these ratios or some other ratio. The specification does not provide clarity and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of the claim.
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 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 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.
Claims 1 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2019172603 of Park in view of CN105598467 (machine translation) of Qiu.
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a method for manufacturing silver-coated nanowire having core-shell structure by using chemical reduction method in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Park discloses nanowires with a diameter of 200 to 1000 nm, Para[0005], and a thickness of 30.6 nm, Para[0101]. These values overlap with the claim values for thickness and diameter and would also result in a D/L ratio that overlaps with the claimed range. 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. Park discloses producing copper nanowires by adding a reducing agent to the aqueous solution to reduce copper ions; washing and drying produced copper nanowires; removing an oxide film from the copper nanowires; adding a reducing agent to the solution, adjusting pH and then forming a silver coating while adding a silver nitrate-ammonia complex solution dropwise; and washing and drying silver-coated copper nanowires, para[0011]. Park does not specifically disclose forming the silver coating multiple times.
Qiu discloses high temperature resistant silver coated and nickel coated copper conductive powder of core shell structure and preparation method thereof in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Qui teaches coating the surface of nickel-coated copper particles with silver using a silver nitrate or silver ammonia solution, Para[0020], as in the claimed invention. Qui discloses that this process can be repeated as needed, and multiple coatings are performed to obtain different silver coating amounts, Para[0020]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the silver coating multiple times as taught by Qiu in the method disclosed by Park in order to obtain different silver coating amounts.
While, Park in view of Qiu does not disclose the numerical limitation related to the peak intensities of silver and copper, Park in view of Qiu does disclose a method involving the same steps and structure as the claimed invention. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established, see MPEP 2112.01. Thus, Park in view of Qiu covers all limitations of claim 1.
Claim 5 further limits claim 1 by claiming that a content of copper oxide (CuO) contained in the core is 2 wt% or less of the total weight of the core.
Park teaches unoxidized copper nanowires, Para[0077]. Therefore, Park discloses the additional limitation of claim 5. Thus, Park in view of Qiu covers all limitations of claim 5.
Claim 6 further limits claim 1 by claiming that in the metal nanowire, a FWHM of a (111) crystal plane of silver contained in the shell is larger than a FWHM of a (111) crystal plane of copper contained in the core.
While, Park in view of Qiu does not disclose the limitation related to the full width half maximum of the silver and copper crystal planes, Park in view of Qiu does disclose a method involving the same steps and structure as the claimed invention. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established, see MPEP 2112.01. Thus, Park in view of Qiu covers all limitations of claim 6.
Claim 7 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the metal nanowire has an oxidation initiation temperature of 2500C or higher.
While, Park in view of Qiu does not disclose the numerical limitation related to the oxidation initiation temperature, a method involving the same steps and structure as the claimed invention is disclosed. Oxidation initiation temperature is a property of nanowires dependent on physical characteristics and chemical composition. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established, see MPEP 2112.01. Thus, Park in view of Qiu covers all limitations of claim 7.
Claim 8 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the peak intensity (I1) of Ag 3d5/2 of silver and the peak intensity (I2) of Cu 2p3/2 of copper in the X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy spectrum satisfy the following Equation 2: (Equation 2) I2/I1 ≤ 0.05.
While, Park in view of Qiu does not disclose the numerical limitation related to the peak intensities of silver and copper, Park in view of Qiu does disclose a method involving the same steps and structure as the claimed invention. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established, see MPEP 2112.01. Thus, Park in view of Qiu covers all limitations of claim 8.
Claim 9 further limits claim 1 by claiming that in a conductive film having a thickness of 8 pm including the metal nanowire, a resistivity change rate is 103% or less, the resistivity change rate being a ratio of a resistivity value measured after allowing the conductive film to stand for 10 days under a relative humidity of 60% and a temperature condition of 1800C to an initial resistivity value of the conductive film, expressed as a percentage.
While, Park in view of Qiu does not disclose the numerical limitation related to the resistivity change rate, a method involving the same steps and structure as the claimed invention is disclosed. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established, see MPEP 2112.01. Thus, Park in view of Qiu covers all limitations of claim 9.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2019172603 of Park in view of CN105598467 (machine translation) of Qiu, as cited above, further in view of WO2018140226 of Yang.
Claim 2 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the metal nanowire has a diameter of 110 to 500 nm and an aspect ratio of 5 to 100.
Park does not disclose a specific aspect ratio.
Yang teaches conductive core-shell metal nanowires for transparent conductors in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Yang discloses an aspect ratio greater than 1, Para[0035]. This overlaps with the claimed range. 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. Yang teaches that in accordance with this disclosure, conductive core-shell metal nanowires that can be synthesized using a solution-based method can be used to construct transparent and flexible conductors with low cost in large scales, Para[0031]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the core-shell nanowires of Park with the aspect ratio of Yang in order to produce low cost, transparent, flexible conductors. Thus, Park in view of Qiu and Yang covers all limitations of claim 2.
Claim 3 further limits claim 2 by claiming that the core of the metal nanowire has a diameter of 100 to 400 nm.
Park teaches copper nanowires as the core of a core-shell structure having a diameter in the range of 200 to 300 nm, Para[0077]. This overlaps with the claimed range. 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. Thus, Park in view of Qiu and Yang covers all limitations of claim 3.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2019172603 of Park in view of CN105598467 (machine translation) of Qiu, as cited above, further in view of US2007018315 of Craig.
Claim 4 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the peak of Ag 3d5/2 of silver is made up of a peak of metallic silver (Ag0).
Park does not specifically teach metallic silver.
Craig teaches conductive adhesive composition in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Craig teaches that although the metal oxide is conductive, it is not as conductive as the pure conductive metal, i.e., the pure un-oxidized silver flake in the preferred embodiment, Para[0026]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use metallic silver as taught by Craig in the metal nanowire disclosed by Park as it is more conductive than silver oxide. Thus, Park in view of Qiu and Craig covers all limitations of claim 4.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2019172603 of Park in view of CN105598467 (machine translation) of Qiu, as cited above, further in view of WO02087809 (machine translation) of Okada.
Claim 7 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the metal nanowire has an oxidation initiation temperature of 2500C or higher.
Park in view of Qiu does not disclose the numerical limitation related to the oxidation initiation temperature.
Okada teaches copper powder for electroconductive paste excellent in resistance to oxidation and method for preparation thereof in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Okada teaches copper powders with SiO2 based gel coatings with oxidation initiation temperatures of 360°C and 352°C, Para[0060, 0062]. This overlaps with the claimed range. 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. Okada discloses that when the copper powder is oxidized, the surface of the particle is covered with copper oxide, which affects the sinterability and also the electric resistance of the conductor after sintering may be increased, so in a special circumstance Excluding the oxidation of the copper powder in the binder removal process, it is not very desirable. However, since residual carbonaceous components also have an adverse effect, in the debinding step, there is a point that it is impossible to stop light oxidation due to oxygen contamination. For these reasons, after the debinding step, the oxidized copper may be reduced by heating in a reducing gas atmosphere such as nitrogen monohydrogen, Para[0009]. Okada teaches that the fact that this reduction processing step is added increases the number of processing steps and the facility increase by that much, which is burdened not only costly but also facility-like, and there is a risk that part of the ceramitus will be reduced due to the reduction treatment, there is no need for the copper powder to be oxidized in the binder removal step, and therefore it is required to be a copper powder excellent in high temperature oxidation resistance, Para[0010]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the copper powder with SiO2 based gel coating with an oxidation initiation temperature as taught by Okada in the nanowire disclosed by Park to achieve high temperature oxidation resistance without having to remove an oxide from the copper powder, thereby reducing the amount of processing steps. Thus, Park in view of Qiu and Okada covers all limitations of claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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 Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/VANESSA T. LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights