DETAILED ACTION
The following Office action concerns Patent Application Number 18/656,267. Claims 1-16 are pending in the application.
Claim 16 is withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The applicant’s amendment filed October 16, 2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
A restriction requirement was sent to the Applicant on August 21, 2025. The Applicant was required to elect among several groups of inventions. The Applicant responded to the restriction requirement on October 16, 2025 and elected Group I, claims 1-15, without traverse. Accordingly, claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 and 103
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.
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 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 1-3, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ittel et al (US 2007/0054104).
Ittel et al teaches a conductive ink for printing a conductive pattern on a substrate (par. 47-48). The limitation in claim 1 regarding spraying the ink onto a substrate having a 3-D surface to form a conductive line having an aspect ratio of 0.05 to 0.3 is a statement of the intended use of the claimed composition. The conductive ink of Ittel et al is capable of the claimed use because it is a conductive printing ink and it comprises all the required components of the claimed ink.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the limitations regarding curing the ink to form lines is a statement of the intended use of the claimed composition. The conductive ink of Ittel et al is capable of the claimed use because it is a conductive printing ink and it comprises all the required components of the claimed ink.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the limitation regarding applying the ink by electrohydrodynamic printing is a statement of the intended use of the claimed composition. The conductive ink of Ittel et al is capable of the claimed use because it is a conductive printing ink and it comprises all the required components of the claimed ink.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or, alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Ionescu et al (US 2022/0007515).
Ionescu et al teaches a conductive ink for printing conductive lines on a substrate (par. 17, 143). The limitation in claim 1 regarding spraying the ink onto a substrate having a 3-D surface to form a conductive line having an aspect ratio of 0.05 to 0.3 is a statement of the intended use of the claimed composition. The conductive ink of Ionescu et al is capable of the claimed use because it is a conductive printing ink and it comprises all the required components of the claimed ink.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the limitations regarding curing the ink to form lines is a statement of the intended use of the claimed composition. The conductive ink of Ionescu et al is capable of the claimed use because it is a conductive printing ink and it comprises all the required components of the claimed ink.
Regarding claim 4-12, Ionescu et al teaches that the ink comprises binder, sodium hydroxide and conductive material (par. 65, 53, 29). Sodium hydroxide is the claimed charge transfer element. The ink further comprises a acrylic acid polymer having a molecular weight of less than 5,000 (par. 43). Acrylic acid polymer is known to be water soluble. The acrylic acid polymer is a reaction element as that term is defined in the claims. The amount of the acrylic acid polymer is 0.1-5 % of the ink (par. 44). The amount of conductive element is 0.1-65 % by weight (par. 32). Therefore, the amount of reaction element includes 3 parts per 70 parts conductive element.
The binder includes acrylic binder (par. 65). Sodium hydroxide is the claimed charge transfer element (par. 53). The amount of sodium hydroxide is 0-2 % by weight (par. 54). The amount of conductive element is 0.1-65 % by weight (par. 32). Therefore, the amount charge transfer element includes 0.5 parts per 70 parts conductive element. The conductive element includes two or more types of materials (par. 29).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the limitation regarding applying the ink by electrohydrodynamic printing is a statement of the intended use of the claimed composition. The conductive ink of Ionescu et al is capable of the claimed use because it is a conductive printing ink and it comprises all the required components of the claimed ink.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ionescu et al in view of Omenetto et al (US 2021/0155812).
Ionescu et al teaches a conductive ink for printing as described above. Ionescu et al does not teach the viscosity of the ink.
However, Omenetto et al teaches a conductive ink for printing having a viscosity of 1,000-10,000 cP (par. 143). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by design need to combine the viscosity of Omenetto et al with the ink of Ionescu et al in order to obtain a known suitable viscosity for printing.
Examiner’s Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William Young whose telephone number is (571) 270-5078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew, can be reached at 571-272-2817. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000./WILLIAM D YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 December 3, 2025