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 Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed July 20, 2026 are acknowledged. Claims 1, 3-4 and 6-8 are amended. Claims 2, 5 and 9 are cancelled.
Claims 4 and 6-8 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, Group II (Claim 4, directed to a metal sintered compact), Group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. Applicant timely elected in the reply filed on December 24, 2025.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 6-8 are pending and Claims 1 and 3 are currently considered in this office action.
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.
Claim 1 and Claim 3 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) in view of Bahnmuller (previously cited, US 20100040846 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Sasaki discloses a sintering material (Abstract; para. [0051]) comprising:
silver particles having a primary particle diameter of 200 nm or less (para. [0037], 100nm or less);
copper particles having a volume-based 50% cumulative particle diameter, as measured by laser diffraction/scattering particle diameter distribution measurement, of 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]).
Sasaki discloses wherein the silver-copper composite powder is used as an ink/paste and desired for forming conductive wiring and printed wiring boards (para. [0002]; para. [0011]; para. [0049]; para. [0051]).
Sasaki however is silent towards the ink/paste composition.
Bahnmuller discloses an ink/paste composition suitable for production of conductive printed images (para. [0010]; para. [0001]), comprising a dispersant agent including a N-containing compound (see list in para. [0027]), a film former such as polyethylene glycol (see Bahnmuller, Claim 11), and suitable additives including an antioxidant and a reducing agent such as ascorbic acid (para. [0031]).
Bahnmuller also teaches forming nanoparticles similarly by chemical precipitation reaction, wherein the nanoparticle solution is filtered to a concentrated solution and directly added to form the ink/paste (para. [0043]-[0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed an ink composition which included the solution resulting from nanoparticle precipitation reaction of Sasaki, a dispersant comprising an N-containing compound, a film former of polyethylene glycol, and additives such as an antioxidant and a reducing agent of ascorbic acid, as taught by Bahnmuller, for the invention disclosed by Sasaki. One would be motivated to do this in order to form an ink composition which can be used to print electrically conducive images (see teachings above by Bahnmuller and Sasaki).
The ink composition of Sasaki and Bahnmuller thus reads on the claimed limitations of a sinterable material comprising the claimed silver particles and copper particles (disclosed by Sasaki above), the nitrogen-containing compound, a reducing agent, and polyethylene glycol (claimed liquid component), as claimed.
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that polyethylene glycol is liquid at normal (room) temperature and comprises a hydroxyl group, as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would also appreciate that the nanoparticle solution, and therefore the ink composition, would comprise trace amounts or more of the reaction components used to form the silver nanoparticles, including the reducing agents and nitrogen containing components disclosed by Sasaki (see EDTA and hydrazine used by Sasaki in para. [0083]; [0098]; [0103]).
Sasaki is silent towards the die shear strength of a sintered material formed with the sinterable material. However, the composition of Sasaki and Bahnmuller is the same as claimed, and it would be obvious that the sinterable material behave the same when manufactured and calcined in the claimed manner. When 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 3, Bahnmuller discloses wherein the reducing agent is ascorbic acid (para. [0031]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate ascorbic acid is an antioxidative compound having a boiling point of 150C or higher. Additionally, ascorbic acid is the same antioxidant as the instant invention (see para. [0115]). When 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01.
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) in view of Bahnmuller (previously cited, US 20100040846 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Zeng (previously cited, US 20080264205 A).
Regarding Claim 3, Bahnmuller discloses wherein the reducing agent is ascorbic acid (para. [0031]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate ascorbic acid has a boiling point of 150C or higher.
While Bahnmuller does not expressly disclose that the ascorbic acid is an antioxidant, Zeng teaches wherein ascorbic acid acts as both a reducing agent 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 that the ascorbic acid be both a reducing agent as taught by Bahnmuller, and an antioxidant, as taught by Zeng, for the invention disclosed by Sasaki and Bahnmuller, in order to further prevent oxidation of the nanoparticles in the ink composition (see teaching above).
Additionally, ascorbic acid is the same antioxidant as the instant invention (see para. [0115]). When 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed July 20, 2026, with respect to Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Sasaki, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims further limiting the liquid component and functionality of the sinterable material. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sasaki in view of Bahnmuller, as detailed above.
Applicant’s arguments are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bahnmuller (previously cited and cited above, US 20100040846 A1, additional teachings): teaches wherein the sintering composition comprises silver nanoparticles with a diameter of 150nm or less and metal particles, including those of copper, with a maximum diameter of 10um or less (Abstract, para. [0012]-[0013]).
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]).
Shim (previously cited, KR 20080032455 A, English Machine Translation provided): teaches wherein prepared silver nanoparticles and copper particles are added to diethylene glycol and triethylene glycol in order to form an ink composition which can be used to produce conductive wiring, wherein the solvent improves uniform dispersibility of the nanoparticles (para. [0001]; para. [0047]; [0050]-[0053]). Triethylene glycol and diethylene glycol are liquid at normal temperature and comprise hydroxyl groups.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights