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 .
Withdrawn Rejection
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-11 as over Pei et al. (US 2018/0277787) in view of Lim et al. (CN 105830170), made of record in the office action mailed on 11/5/2025, page 6 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed on 02/06/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2014/0020737) in view of Lim et al. (CN 105830170).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 7-8 Jung discloses silver nanowire conductive film coated with an oxidation protection layer and a method for fabricating the same. A silver nanowire conductive film coated with an oxidation protection layer includes: a substrate; silver nanowires disposed on the substrate; and an oxidation protection layer coated on the silver nanowires, wherein the oxidation protection layer comprises an oxide (abstract). Jung discloses solar cell comprising an electrode comprising the silver nanowire conductive film of claim 1 (claim 15). Referring to FIG. 4, in one example of a silver nanowire conductive film 100, the oxidation protection layer 102 is coated on the surface of silver nanowires 101 of the siliver nanowire conductive film 100 (para 0050). The substrate may include a flexible polymer film (para 0011).
However, Jung fails to disclose that the protective layer comprises a sputtered oxynitride, the sputtered oxynitride including a metal and nitrogen and wherein a linear resistance of the solution-phase wire material having the encapsulant film disposed on its surface is less than a linear resistance of the solution phase wire material having no encapsulant film disposed on its surface.
Whereas, Lim discloses a conductive structure and a preparation method thereof. According to one embodiment of the conductive structure of the present invention comprises: a transparent conductive layer, comprises aluminium on the transparent conductive layer and the metal layer, and is arranged on the metal layer of aluminum oxynitride layer (abstract). Lim discloses in FIG. 1A, in the conductive structure, a metal layer 200 and aluminum oxynitride layer 300 on the transparent conductive layer 100 (page 5). The aluminum oxynitride layer comprises aluminum oxynitride represented by AlOxNy, x may be greater than 0 and less than 1.5, y is more than 0.1 and less than 1, x may be the content ratio of oxygen atoms in aluminum oxynitride, and y is the content ratio of nitrogen atoms in the aluminum oxynitride (page 5).
With respect to the limitation of sputtered oxynitride, Any difference imparted by product by process limitations would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made because where the examiner has found a substantially similar product as in the applied prior art the burden of proof is shifted to the applicant to establish that their product is patentably distinct not the examiner to show the same process of making, see In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324, In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 and MPEP 2113.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include aluminum oxynitride including a metal and nitrogen as taught by Lim in the protective layer of Jung motivated by the desire to achieve excellent connection resistance and improve the corrosion resistance.
As Jung in view of Lim discloses electrode device comprising a substrate material, a plurality of wire material coated with aluminum oxynitride as presently claimed, it therefore would be obvious that a linear resistance of the solution-phase wire material having the encapsulant film disposed on its surface would intrinsically be less than a linear resistance of the solution phase wire material having no encapsulant film disposed on its surface.
Regarding claim 2, As Jung in view of Lim discloses electrode device comprising a substrate material, a plurality of wire material coated with aluminum oxynitride as presently claimed, it therefore would be obvious that a thermal stability of the electrode device would intrinsically be approximately 100 °C above a failure point of an electrode device that lacks an encapsulant film disposed on a surface of the solution-phase wire material.
Regarding claims 6, 21 Jung discloses a thickness of the oxidation protection layer may be 20 nm or less (para 0014).
Regarding claim 9, As Jung in view of Lim discloses electrode device comprising a substrate material, a plurality of wire material coated with aluminum oxynitride as presently claimed, it therefore would be obvious that wherein an electrical stability with applied linear voltages for the electrode device would intrinsically be about 7.87 V/cm without resistance.
Regarding claim 10, As Jung in view of Lim discloses electrode device comprising a substrate material, a plurality of wire material coated with aluminum oxynitride as presently claimed, it therefore would be obvious that when electrical stability with applied linear voltages for the electrode device would intrinsically be approximately 1.66 times larger than an electrode device that lacks an encapsulant film disposed on a surface of the solution-phase wire material.
Regarding claim 11, As Jung in view of Lim discloses electrode device comprising a substrate material, a plurality of wire material coated with aluminum oxynitride as presently claimed, it therefore would be obvious that a chemical stability of the electrode device would intrinsically have an increase in linear resistance that is approximately fifty times smaller than 15 an electrode device that lacks an encapsulant film disposed on a surface of the solution- phase wire material.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2014/0020737) in view of Lim et al. (CN 105830170) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Pei et al. (US 2018/0277787).
Regarding claim 3, Jung fails to disclose that the substrate material comprises one or more of glass, silicon or PET.
Whereas, Pei discloses transparent conductive film having a first surface and a second surface, the second surface opposite the first surface; and at least one thermally stable substrate attached to the second surface. The transparent conductive film includes a plurality of thermally stable nanowires embedded within at least one polymer binder, the thermally stable nanowires include metal nanowires, the first surface includes a conductive surface of a plurality of the nanowires and the stable nanowire is silver nanowire (abstract). Pei discloses method for fabricating transparent electrodes for organic devices (para 0007). Pei discloses FIG. 2D illustrates an example of a lighting panel comprising at least a light-emitting diode formed on the transparent conductive film, a solid barrier structure 224 and a thermally stable substrate 208 (glass) [para 0098].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to form substrate of Jung comprising of glass as taught by Pei motivated by the desire for end use applications for different product.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2014/0020737) in view of Lim et al. (CN 105830170) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Rousselet et al. (WO 2017/220920).
Regarding claim 4, Jung fails to disclose that the form factor of the wire material is approximately in a range of about 20-200 nm.
Whereas, Rousselet discloses electric cable comprising: - at least one elongate electric conductor (1); - at least one electrically insulating layer (2) that surrounds the elongate electric conductor (1); - at least one metal layer (3) that surrounds the electrically insulating layer (2); characterized in that the metal layer (3) comprises metal nanowires (abstract). Rousselet discloses one of the metal nano-wires, or more particularly the metal nano-wires constituting the metal layer, may have a form factor that is strictly greater than 1, preferably at least 10, preferably from minus 50, and particularly preferably at least 100 (claim 2) and at least one of the metal nanowires has one of its dimensions of at most 400 nm (claim 3). The silver nano-wires having a form factor equal to 125 (cylinder-shaped nanowires having the following dimensions: length 10 μm and diameter 80 nm) [page 10].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to form silver nanowire of Jung having a form factor of 125 as taught by Rousselet motivated by the desire to have improved electrical conductivity and mechanical flexibility.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/05/2026 have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejections as stated above.
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 RONAK C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-6:30PM (FLEX).
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, ALICIA CHEVALIER can be reached at 5712721490. 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
/RONAK C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights