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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/25/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-4 in the reply filed on 06/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “the number” in line 5 should read “a number”
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Itoh et al. (US 20070098883 A1, cited in Office Action dated 03/28/2024).
Itoh teaches a metal nanoparticle dispersion usable for ejection in the form of fine droplets to be applied in the layered shape (Title), where metal-containing dispersion (i.e., a liquid) (Abstract, [0009]) is stacked to form a wiring [0009]. Itoh teaches acquiring metal-containing liquid information including the specific gravity (i.e., density) of a metal-containing liquid containing metal fine particles [0127, 0148] and a content of solvent relative to the amount of metals (i.e., a content of metal fine particles) [0127, 0147]. Itoh teaches the fluid viscosity of the dispersion depends on the average particle size and concentration of the metal used [0105], where as the fluid fluidity (which is directly inverse to the fluid’s viscosity) affects the ratio of layer thickness to width of the dispersion applied [0016], thus the concentration of metal used intrinsically affects the thickness of each layer deposited, and in turn affects the number of layers needed to achieve a certain thickness of the layered shape. Therefore, in forming the wiring, which has a set height (e.g., in the range of 10 to 100 µm, [0045]), the process intrinsically requires calculating the number of layers of the metal-containing liquid required to form a wiring with the set overall height by stacking the metal-containing liquid, based on the metal containing liquid information acquired in the acquiring step as claimed.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itoh as applied to claim 1 under 35 USC 102 above, further in view of Katsumura (US 20130129916 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Itoh teaches a method according to claim 1 as noted above.
Itoh teaches Itoh teaches the fluid viscosity of the dispersion depends on the average particle size and concentration of the metal used [0105], where as the fluid fluidity (which is directly inverse to the fluid’s viscosity) affects the ratio of layer thickness [0016], and as the wiring has a set overall height (which determines the number of layers required) [0045], the fluid viscosity/fluidity comprises information indicating a correspondence relationship between the metal-containing liquid information and the number of layers of the metal-containing liquid is used to calculate the number of layers of the metal-containing liquid, based on the metal-containing liquid information acquired in the acquiring step.
Itoh does not teach wherein in the calculating step, the information is stored in a memory.
Katsumura teaches a conductive pattern forming method and conductive pattern forming system (Title), where a pattern of functional fluid is formed layer by layer by inkjet printing [0136-0138], where the pattern is a conductive pattern and the fluid contains metal microparticles [0009], thus Katsumura and Itoh are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to a circuit forming method comprising printing with layers of metal-containing liquid. Katsumura teaches where a system controller 72 controls the forming of the conductive pattern (Fig. 6, [0111]), where the system 72 receives various input information which is used to generate command signals for components of the system [0112] such as a discharge controller 84 which controls printing by ink-jet head 50 (Fig. 4, [0115]). Katsumura teaches the system controller 72 stores data in memory 82 before it is subjected to computation (i.e., a calculating step) in the system controller (Fig. 6, [0113]), thus Katsumura teaches wherein in the calculating step, information is stored in a memory.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a system controller connected to a memory and to the ink-jet head as taught by Katsumura to in the method of Itoh, as doing so would automate the manual activity of manually calculating a number of layers required to form a wiring of a set height of Katsumura, where it has long been held obvious to automate a manual activity. See MPEP 2144.04 (III).
Further, because Itoh is silent with respect to how the calculating step is used to communicate the number of layers calculated to the wiring forming step, in order to carry out the invention of Itoh one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the art for a reference teaching methods of calculating a number of layers required based on the metal-containing liquid information and communicating such to a wiring forming step suitable for use within the process of Itoh, such as that of using a system controller and memory which generates command signals for the ink-jet head as taught by Katsumura. As Itoh and Katsumura both relate to inkjet printing of metal-containing liquid to form circuits, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the system controller and memory as described by Katsumura.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itoh as applied to claim 1 under 35 USC 102 above, further in view of Chaves (US 20110062237 A1).
Regarding claim 2-4, Itoh teaches a method according to claim 1 as noted above.
Itoh teaches Itoh teaches the fluid viscosity of the dispersion depends on the average particle size and concentration of the metal used [0105], where as the fluid fluidity (which is directly inverse to the fluid’s viscosity) affects the ratio of layer thickness [0016], and as the wiring has a set overall height (which determines the number of layers required) [0045], the fluid viscosity/fluidity comprises information indicating a correspondence relationship between the metal-containing liquid information and the number of layers of the metal-containing liquid is used to calculate the number of layers of the metal-containing liquid, based on the metal-containing liquid information acquired in the acquiring step.
Itoh does not teach wherein in the calculating step, the information is stored in a memory or wherein in the acquiring step, the metal-containing liquid information is acquired by reading an identification code in which the metal-containing liquid is coded, by a reading device.
Chaves teaches an integrated smart label (Title) comprising data (Abstract, [0002, 0006]), and a system for reading data from the integrated smart label (Fig. 4, [0018]), where the smart label is attached to an item 404 (Fig. 4, [0001, 0030]), where the item may be good or materials used in a manufacturing process [0001], thus Chaves and Itoh are analogous as both relate to materials used in a manufacturing process. Chaves teaches the data from the smart label is read by the scanner 406 and reader 408 (Fig. 4, [0059-0060], and is communicated to a network with a computer 412 and database 414 which can store additional information about the item 404 (Fig. 4, [0059-0061]), where the additional information about the item is not limited [0031, 0041]. Chaves teaches the label comprises a memory 110 (Fig. 1B, [0043]), which contains the additional data (i.e., information stored in a memory) [0069, 0071]. Chaves teaches the reader can read the data stored in the semiconductor device, decode it and provide it to a computer system for eventual processing [0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added an integrated smart label containing the metal-containing liquid information on a memory, to a container of the metal-containing liquid of Itoh and read the label of the container using a scanner and a reader as taught by Chaves, as doing so would read and provide the metal-providing liquid information to a computer system and database, enabling storage of the information and automated processing/calculating using the information, where it has long been held obvious to automate a manual activity.
As Itoh in view of Chaves suggest adding a smart label to containers of the metal-containing liquid of Itoh so that the metal-containing liquid information is provided on the memory in the identification code on the container, and suggests reading the smart label (i.e., an identification code provided on a container) to acquire such information; Itoh in view of Chaves teaches wherein in the acquiring step the metal-containing liquid information is acquired by reading an identification code provided on a container of the metal-containing liquid, in which the metal-containing liquid information is coded, by a reading device, teaching all of claims 2-4 as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nikolas T Pullen whose telephone number is (571)272-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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 Hendricks can be reached at (571)-272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/NIKOLAS TAKUYA PULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights