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
Claims 15-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method of manufacturing a printed product and electronic device, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 17th, 2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-14, in the reply filed on December 17th, 2025, is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 6-11 and 13-14 are 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 6 recites the phrase “the portion” which lacks antecedent basis. As best understood, there may be multiple portions which are immediately adjacent to the primer layer (i.e., in the claimed location). In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “a portion.” In addition, claim 6 recites the phrase “the MOD ink,” but claim 6 also recites two separate alternative structures which include MOD ink (i.e., a precursor in the form of MOD ink, or as both a metal particle-containing ink and MOD ink). It is not clear which alternative the phrase “the MOD ink” is attempting to modify. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as directed to either MOD ink. Claim 6 also specifies the inclusion of a metal conductive layer precursor, yet claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, recites a metal conductive layer (i.e., a layer formed via a metal conductive layer precursor). The claim is essentially mixing structural features found in Applicant’s invention (i.e., the formed printed product) with structural features in the intermediate used to form Applicant’s invention (i.e., a laminate having a precursor layer which is used to form the claimed printed product). It is not clear if Applicant is attempting to limit the claimed invention in terms of product-by-process language (i.e., claiming a product formed by a processed precursor), or if, instead, Applicant is attempt to diverge into claims directed to a precursor product. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as limiting the substances used to form the claimed metal conductive layer in a product-by-process manner.
Claim 7 recites the phrase “an alloy, such as silver and tin,” but it is unclear if the claim is attempting to positively recite the presence of silver and tin (i.e., the claimed phrase constitutes exemplary claim language). In other words, it is unclear if the phrase “such as silver and tin” is attempting to narrow the claimed invention. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as directed to “an alloy.” Claim 7 also includes the phrase “the metal conductive layer precursor,” which lacks antecedent basis. It is possible that claim 7 should depend from claim 6, and not claim 5, as claim 6 includes the recitation of a metal conductive layer precursor. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as comprising a metal conductive layer precursor.
Claim 8 recites the phrase “(for example, an epoxy molding compound),” but it is unclear if the claim is attempting to positively recite this feature (i.e., the claimed phrase constitutes exemplary claim language). In other words, it is unclear if the phrase “(for example, an epoxy molding compound)” is attempting to narrow the claimed invention. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as not limited to the exemplary claim language.
Claim 9 recites the phrase “the surface” which lacks antecedent basis. As best understood, the claimed substrate has two surfaces, and therefore, it is unclear which surface is specified by the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as directed to “a surface.”
Claim 10 recites the phrase “the primer layer on the heat generating device” without first claiming the location of the heat generating device. Technically, the phrase “the primer layer” lacks antecedent basis, as it is unclear if “the primer layer” is directed to the primer layer recited in present claim 1, or a new primer layer (i.e., the new primer layer which contains the heat generating device). In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as broadly directed to either the primer layer of claim 1, or a new primer layer.
Claim 11 recites the phrases “the entire surface or a selected region of the surface of the substrate” and “the covered region” lack antecedent basis. As best understood, the claimed substrate has multiple surfaces, and “the covered region” has not been specified in preceding claim 1. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be directed to “an entire surface or a selected region of the entire surface” and “a covered region.” In addition, the claim positively recites “the selected region comprises a plurality of devices,” but the preceding claim language implies that a selected region may not be present (i.e., in the alternative in which “an entire surface” is used to meet the claim). It is not clear if Applicant is intending to further positively recite a selected region, or if only the alternative directed to the selected region should be considered. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as including only “an entire surface.”
Claim 13 recites the phrases “the surface of the substrate” and “the surface of the primer layer” which each lack antecedent basis. As best understood, both the claimed substrate and claimed primer layer have at least two surfaces. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as directed to “a surface of the substrate” and “a surface of the primer layer”.
Claim 14 recites the phrase “a PCBA such as an FPCB” which includes exemplary claim language. It is unclear if the claim is attempting to further limit the invention to an FPCB, specifically. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as directed to a PCBA (i.e., not requiring an FPCB).
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 1-14 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]).
With regards to claim 2, 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 posses 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 posses 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 posses the claimed gradient region.
With regards to claim 5, the metal conductive layer comprises silver (Ag) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 6, the silver nanoparticle ink (i.e., metal conductive layer precursor) used to form the conductive layer includes organic stabilizers (i.e., rendering it a metal-organic deposition ink) (Wu: para. [0050]). It is noted that the silver nanoparticle ink is applied to the primer layer (i.e., a portion of the metal conductive layer precursor is provided immediately adjacent to the primer layer in the form of MOD ink, as applied) (see above discussion). Alternatively, the present claim language is considered product-by-process language, as it is directed to process language specifying the composition of the precursor (i.e., the metal conductive layer precursor being in the form of an MOD ink). It is noted that the present claims are directed to the printed product, and not its precursor materials (i.e., a metal conductive layer is positively recited, and not the precursor materials which eventually become the metal conductive layer). It is not seen how the claim language is structurally limiting, as regardless of starting material and processing, a metal conductive layer is formed.
With regards to claim 7, the present claim language is considered product-by-process language, as it is directed to process language specifying the composition of the precursor (i.e., the metal conductive layer precursor being in the form of an MOD ink). It is noted that the present claims are directed to the printed product, and not its precursor materials (i.e., a metal conductive layer is positively recited, and not the precursor materials which eventually become the metal conductive layer). It is not seen how the claim language is structurally limiting, as regardless of starting material and processing, a metal conductive layer is formed. In addition, it is noted that, technically, any silver particles (such as those in the ink of Wu) are capable of forming an alloy.
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 10, Wu further discloses the printed product as located in an electronic device (i.e., implies that the printed product comprising a heat generating device with a primer thereon, noting that the claimed term “on” does not imply direct contact between the heat generating device and primer layer). Wu discusses the primer layer in terms of “average thickness” (i.e., implying that the thickness of the primer layer is variable) (Wu: para. [0014]). Therefore, since the primer layer of Wu has variable thickness (i.e., including at least one greater thickness and lesser thickness), and since the claimed region locations are not specified (i.e., the claim only requires “a thickness on the heat generating device” compared to a thickness of “a potion of other regions”), a “smaller” thickness of the average can be viewed as a thickness of the primer layer on the heat generating device, and a “larger” thickness may be viewed as constituting an “other region” (Wu: para. [0014]).
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) (Wu: para. [0054]).
Conclusion
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