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 .
Response to Amendment and Election/Restriction, and Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed December 24, 2025 are acknowledged. Claims 1-3, 6-7 and 9 are amended.
Applicant’s election of Group I, Claims 1-3 and 9, directed to a sintering material, in the reply filed on December 24, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 4-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, Group II (Claims 4-5, directed to a metal sintered compact), Group III (Claim 6, a method for producing a sintering material), Group IV (Claim 7, a method for producing a joined body) and Group V (Claim 8, a joined body), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-9 are pending and Claims 1-3 and 9 are currently considered in this office action.
Priority
Applicant’s claims to foreign priority in application no. JP2021-173794, filed October 25, 2021 and application no. JP2022-161807, filed October 6, 2022, are acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sasaki (cited by Applicant in IDS filed April 23, 2024, JP 2007100155 A, English Machine Translation provided).
Regarding Claim 1, Sasaki discloses a sintering material (Abstract; para. [0051]) comprising:
silver particles, wherein a primary particle diameter of the silver particles is 200 nm or less (para. [0037], 100nm or less);
copper particles, wherein a volume-based 50% cumulative particle diameter of the copper particles, as measured by laser diffraction/scattering particle diameter distribution measurement, is 1um or more (para. [0072], D50 of 0.2-5um spherical particles; para. [0076], 1-8um flaky particles; para. [0102],1um);
a nitrogen-containing compound (para. [0083]; para. [0103], EDTA); and
a reducing agent (para. [0098]).
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.
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 2-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (cited by Applicant in IDS filed April 23, 2024, JP 2007100155 A, English Machine Translation provided), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Shim (KR 20080032455 A, English Machine Translation provided).
Regarding Claim 2, Sasaki fails to disclose a liquid component that is liquid at normal temperature, the liquid component further comprising one or both of an ether bond or hydroxyl group.
Shim teaches a similar invention wherein silver nanoparticles and copper particles are prepared in an aqueous solution using silver nitrate and a reducing agent, and wherein the solution further comprises an organic solvent, such as an alcohol and/or a polyol, including for example ethylene glycol, in order to improve uniform dispersibility of the nanoparticles (para. [0047]; [0050]-[0053]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that alcohols and polyols, including ethylene glycol, would be liquid at normal temperature and comprise hydroxyl groups.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included an organic solvent of an alcohol and/or polyol, including ethylene glycol, as taught by Shim, for the invention disclosed by Sasaki, in order to improve uniform dispersibility of the silver nanoparticles (see teaching by Shim above).
Regarding Claim 3 and Claim 9, Sasaki does not expressly disclose an antioxidative compound having a boiling point of 150°C or higher (para. [0085]).
However, Sasaki discloses wherein the reducing agent includes hydrazine (para. [0098]), and Shim teaches wherein a reducing agent includes at least one of hydrazine and ascorbic acid (para. [0055]; para. [0085]). Ascorbic acid reads on the claimed antioxidative compound having a boiling point of 150C or higher.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further included ascorbic acid, as taught by Shim, for the invention disclosed by Sasaki, in order to reduce the silver nitrate and form silver nanoparticles, and because it is prima facie obvious to combine equivalents (hydrazine and ascorbic acid) known for the same purpose (reducing agent) (see MPEP 2144.06.I).
Claim 3 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (cited by Applicant in IDS filed April 23, 2024, JP 2007100155 A, English Machine Translation provided), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Shim (KR 20080032455 A, English Machine Translation provided) and Zeng (US 20080264205 A).
Regarding Claim 3, Sasaki does not expressly disclose an antioxidative compound having a boiling point of 150°C or higher (para. [0085]).
However, Sasaki discloses wherein the reducing agent includes hydrazine (para. [0098]), and Shim teaches wherein a reducing agent includes at least one of hydrazine and ascorbic acid (para. [0055]; para. [0085]). Ascorbic acid reads on the claimed antioxidative compound having a boiling point of 150C or higher.
Further, Zeng teaches forming metal nanoparticles, including silver nanoparticles, from chemical reduction, wherein ascorbic acid is used as both a reducing agent to reduce the metallic ion precursor and as an antioxidant to prevent oxidation of the nanoparticle formed (para. [0017]; para. [0034]; para. [0036]; para. [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further included ascorbic acid, as taught by Shim and Zeng, for the invention disclosed by Sasaki, in order to reduce the silver nitrate and form silver nanoparticles while preventing oxidation of the nanoparticles (see teachings above), and because it is prima facie obvious to combine equivalents (hydrazine and ascorbic acid) known for the same purpose (reducing agent) (see MPEP 2144.06.I).
Claim 9 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (cited by Applicant in IDS filed April 23, 2024, JP 2007100155 A, English Machine Translation provided) and Shim (KR 20080032455 A, English Machine Translation provided), as applied to Claim 2 above, in further view of Zeng (US 20080264205 A).
Regarding Claim 9, Sasaki does not expressly disclose an antioxidative compound having a boiling point of 150°C or higher (para. [0085]).
However, Sasaki discloses wherein the reducing agent includes hydrazine (para. [0098]), and Shim teaches wherein a reducing agent includes at least one of hydrazine and ascorbic acid (para. [0055]; para. [0085]). Ascorbic acid reads on the claimed antioxidative compound having a boiling point of 150C or higher.
Further, Zeng teaches forming metal nanoparticles, including silver nanoparticles, from chemical reduction, wherein ascorbic acid is used as both a reducing agent to reduce the metallic ion precursor and as an antioxidant to prevent oxidation of the nanoparticle formed (para. [0017]; para. [0034]; para. [0036]; para. [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further included ascorbic acid, as taught by Shim and Zeng, for the invention disclosed by Sasaki, in order to reduce the silver nitrate and form silver nanoparticles while preventing oxidation of the nanoparticles (see teachings above), and because it is prima facie obvious to combine equivalents (hydrazine and ascorbic acid) known for the same purpose (reducing agent) (see MPEP 2144.06.I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bahnmuller (US 20100040846 A1): teaches a sintering composition (para. [0012]), comprising silver nanoparticles with a diameter of 150nm or less (Abstract), a solvent including glycols, alcohols and ethers (para. [0029], Claim 10, reads on liquid component), film formers such as polyethylene glycols (Abstract, Claim 11, also reads on liquid component), a polymer dispersing agent including polyvinyl amines (Abstract; para. [0027], reads on N-containing compound), metal particles with a maximum diameter of 10um or less, including copper particles (para. [0013]), and additives such as antioxidants, including additives which are also reducing agents, such as ascorbic acid (para. [0031]).
Varma (US 20110110723 A1): teaches forming silver nanoparticles from reduction of silver nitrate salt using a solution including a solvent, a reducing agent, and a stabilizing or capping agent (para. [0007). Varma teaches wherein an antioxidant such as ascorbic acid is further useful in metal nanoparticle precipitation and wherein the antioxidant also serves as a reducing agent (para. [0007]; para. [0023]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 MT.
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 Walker can be reached at (571)-272-3458. 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.
CATHERINE P. SMITH
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/CATHERINE P SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735