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 § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 11-14, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al (US2017/0236610A1).
With regards to claim 1, Wu discloses a printed element comprising a substrate, a partially-cured primer layer comprising an epoxy and alkoxysilane (i.e., organic dielectric material) applied to a surface of the substrate, and a layer of silver nanoparticle ink (i.e., a metal conductive layer) applied onto the surface of the primer layer (Wu: abstract; para. [0001]-[0003]; claims 1 and 3). Wu further discloses that, during annealing of the layer of silver nanoparticle ink, the loosely packed silver nanoparticles connect and chemically bind to the material of the primer layer to form an interface region (i.e., a hybrid layer located between the primer layer and metal conductive layer, the hybrid layer comprising materials from the primer layer and metal conductive layer) (Wu: para. [0034], [0037]-[0038], and [0051]). In addition, paragraph [0097] of the present specification admits that the claimed gradient region results from use of a “wet-on-wet” method. As best understood, since Wu applies a metal nanoparticle ink (i.e., a first liquid, or “wet” material) to a primer layer which is only partially cured (i.e., a second “wet material, per the present specification), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the claimed gradient region to be inherently present (see above discussion). In other words, Wu discloses a method of formation which is substantially identical (or in this case, fully identical) to that of the present specification. It has been held that a structure’s properties and its method of formation are inseparable, per MPEP 2112. As the printed element of Wu is formed in the manner of the present specification, and further, the printed element of Wu is formed from the same process steps which are admitted as resulting in the claimed gradient region, the printed element of Wu must necessarily possess the claimed gradient region.
With regards to claim 3, paragraph [0097] of the present specification admits that the claimed gradient region results from use of a “wet-on-wet” method. As best understood, since Wu applies a metal nanoparticle ink (i.e., a first liquid, or “wet” material) to a primer layer which is only partially cured (i.e., a second “wet material, per the present specification), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the claimed gradient region (i.e., in the form of a content, granularity, or crystal size gradient) to be inherently present (see above discussion). In other words, Wu discloses a method of formation which is substantially identical (or in this case, fully identical) to that of the present specification. It has been held that a structure’s properties and its method of formation are inseparable, per MPEP 2112. As the printed element of Wu is formed in the manner of the present specification, and further, the printed element of Wu is formed from the same process steps which are admitted as resulting in the claimed gradient region, the printed element of Wu must necessarily possess the claimed gradient region.
With regards to claim 4, paragraph [0097] of the present specification admits that the claimed gradient region results from use of a “wet-on-wet” method. As best understood, since Wu applies a metal nanoparticle ink (i.e., a first liquid, or “wet” material) to a primer layer which is only partially cured (i.e., a second “wet material, per the present specification), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the claimed gradient region (i.e., including a gradient region of the claimed thickness) to be inherently present (see above discussion). In other words, Wu discloses a method of formation which is substantially identical (or in this case, fully identical) to that of the present specification. It has been held that a structure’s properties and its method of formation are inseparable, per MPEP 2112. As the printed element of Wu is formed in the manner of the present specification, and further, the printed element of Wu is formed from the same process steps which are admitted as resulting in the claimed gradient region, the printed element of Wu must necessarily possess the claimed gradient region.
With regards to claim 5, the metal conductive layer comprises silver (Ag) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 8, the substrate is formed of, for example, a polycarbonate (i.e., the substrate has a surface comprising a polymer) (Wu: para. [0015]).
With regards to claim 9, the substrate includes a roughened surface, such that the thickness of the primer layer is the same as the thickness of the surface of the substrate (i.e., a roughened surface innately has grooves, and since the thickness of the primer layer is that of the roughened surface upon application, essentially, the grooves are filled with the primer layer) (Wu: para. [0055]).
With regards to claim 11, an entire surface of the substrate is covered with the primer layer, and an additional region may be considered to be comprising the primer layer, hybrid layer, and metal conductive layer (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 12, the substrate is a part of an electronic device (i.e., an object which, depending on the circumstances and end use, could potentially require metallization or EMI shielding, as, technically, any object could require metallization or EMI shielding) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 13, the substrate undergoes a roughening treatment, while the primer layer is considered a planarization layer (i.e., implies a roughness of the substrate which is higher than a roughness of the primer layer) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 14, the device is in the form of an interconnect joining two electronic components (i.e., implies a printed circuit board assembly) (Wu: para. [0054]).
With regards to claim 24, the substrate has a surface comprising an epoxy with an alkoxysilane (i.e., an epoxy molding compound) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 25, the device is in the form of an interconnect joining two electronic components (i.e., implies a printed circuit board) which may be made of, for example, a plastic (i.e., a flexible material) (Wu: para. [0003]-[0004] and [0054]).
With regards to claim 26, paragraph [0097] of the present specification admits that the claimed gradient region results from use of a “wet-on-wet” method. As best understood, since Wu applies a metal nanoparticle ink (i.e., a first liquid, or “wet” material) to a primer layer which is only partially cured (i.e., a second “wet material, per the present specification), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the claimed gradient region (i.e., including a hybrid region of the same thickness) to be inherently present (see above discussion). In other words, Wu discloses a method of formation which is substantially identical (or in this case, fully identical) to that of the present specification. It has been held that a structure’s properties and its method of formation are inseparable, per MPEP 2112. As the printed element of Wu is formed in the manner of the present specification, and further, the printed element of Wu is formed from the same process steps which are admitted as resulting in the claimed gradient region, the printed element of Wu must necessarily possess the claimed gradient region.
With regards to claim 27, paragraph [0097] of the present specification admits that the claimed gradient region results from use of a “wet-on-wet” method. As best understood, since Wu applies a metal nanoparticle ink (i.e., a first liquid, or “wet” material) to a primer layer which is only partially cured (i.e., a second “wet material, per the present specification), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the claimed gradient region (i.e., including a hybrid region of the same thickness) to be inherently present (see above discussion). In other words, Wu discloses a method of formation which is substantially identical (or in this case, fully identical) to that of the present specification. It has been held that a structure’s properties and its method of formation are inseparable, per MPEP 2112. As the printed element of Wu is formed in the manner of the present specification, and further, the printed element of Wu is formed from the same process steps which are admitted as resulting in the claimed gradient region, the printed element of Wu must necessarily possess the claimed gradient region.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and they are found persuasive. Applicant has amended the present claims to delete the previously indicated indefinite language. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C> 112(b) have been withdrawn.
The remainder of Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Wu teaches an alkoxysilane-mediated chemical bonding mechanism between silver nanoparticles and a primer layer, which functions as ‘glue’. Applicant argues that Wu does not teach the silver nanoparticles as penetrating into the primer layer to form a metal conductive layer with the claimed gradient distribution. Applicant’s arguments are noted, and it is acknowledged that Wu does not explicitly state the formation of a hybrid layer as claimed. However, as indicated in the previous grounds of rejection, Wu teaches a process which is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention. In both cases, silver nanoparticle inks are coated onto an organic dielectric material made of epoxy primer. The present specification is rather broad in its selection of organic dielectric materials and silver nanoparticle inks. As best understood from the present specification, coating any known silver nanoparticle ink to a known epoxy primer results in the structure of the claimed invention. Paragraph [0050] of Wu further includes organic stabilizers in its ink (i.e., rendering it an MOD ink), and paragraph [0044] of the present specification, in describing the inks used to create the claimed invention, simply states that “MOD inks are known in the prior art”. Paragraph [0075] of the present specification notes that wet-on-wet processes (like that of Wu) is what allows the MOD compound to “invade deeper into the primer precursor”. In other words, it appears that, since Wu has the same materials as the specification, and applies them in the same manner (i.e., in a wet-on-wet method), the claimed hybrid layer results.
Conclusion
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 ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Maria V. Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/E.W./
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
