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 § 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 2 and 20 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 2: It is not clear if “said thickness” in claim 2 is referring to the thickness of the metal layer or the thickness of the first patterned polymeric layer in claim 1.
Claim 20: It is not clear if “said polymeric layer” in claim 20 is referring to the first polymeric layer or the second polymeric layer in claim 15.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosalla et al. (US 2018/0072045 A1).
Claims 1, 2 and 8: Kosalla teaches an article comprising a substrate 4 [0150], adhesive droplets 3 on the substrate 4 [0152], and a transfer ply 21 containing a metal layer 25 on the adhesive droplets 3 ([0154], [0161]), wherein the substate 4 can be a paper {instant claim 8} ([0025] and [0173]). See also Figs. 1 and 7. The substrate 4 meets the claimed porous substrate, the adhesive droplets 3 meet the claimed first patterned polymeric layer, and the metal layer 25 meets the claimed patterned metallic layer. Kosalla teaches the thickness of the metal layer 25 is 10-200 nm [0167] which overlaps with the claimed range of at most 3µm. Kosalla teaches the thickness of the adhesive 3 is 0.5-20 µm on at least one subregion [0049]; and this is interpreted as the thickness of the adhesive 3 can be different in some other subregions; thus, the thickness of the adhesive is not limited to 0.5-20 µm. With respect to the thickness of the adhesive 3 {instant claim 2}, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the thickness of the adhesive 3; and the motivation would be to control the transfer property the metal layer 25 onto the substrate 4, and to control the adhesion strength of between the substrate 4 and the metal layer 25. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claims 4 and 5: Kosalla teaches after pre-curing the adhesive 3 [0152], and before fully curing the adhesive 3 [0153], the adhesive 3 side of the transfer ply 21 is pressed onto the substrate 4 via a press roller 16 [0152]. It is interpreted that some of the fully uncured adhesive 3 wick into the substrate 4 because at the time of pressing the adhesive 3 is not fully cured and the substrate 4 is paper which is a porous material. With respect to the claimed thickness of extent, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the thickness to enhance the adhesion strength between the substrate 4 and adhesive 3. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 6: Kosalla teaches the transfer ply 21 comprises the metal layer 25 sandwiched between a varnish layer 24 and a primer layer 26 (Fig. 7 and [0161]). The varnish layer 24 meets the claimed second polymeric layer.
Claims 9 and 14: Kosalla teaches the adhesive 3 is UV cured ([0059], [0063] and [0073]).
Claims 10-12: Kosalla teaches the metal layer 25 can be aluminum, chromium, silver, gold or copper [0097].
Claim 15: Kosalla teaches a method of producing the article, the method comprising:
(a) selectively depositing a liquid pre-polymer {adhesive droplets 3} on a first surface of a multi-layered transfer portion {transfer ply 21} of a metal foil {foil 2}, according to a digital pattern, to produce a first pattern {adhesive 3}, said liquid pre-polymer {adhesive droplet 3} having a viscosity of at most 100cP {5-20 mPas}; (see [0151] and [0053])
said metal foil {foil 2} including:
(i) a substrate portion having a release layer {detachment layer 23} disposed on top of a carrier layer {carrier ply 22}; and (see [0161])
(ii) said multi-layered transfer portion {transfer ply 21}, wherein said multi-layered transfer portion {transfer ply 21} includes a first polymeric layer {primer layer 26} distally disposed with respect to said substrate portion, a metallic layer {metal layer 25} disposed between said first polymeric layer {primer layer 26} and said substrate portion, proximal to said release layer {detachment layer 23}, and optionally, a second polymeric layer {varnish layer 24}, disposed in between said release layer {detachment layer 23} and said metallic layer {metal layer 25}; (see [0161])
said metal foil {foil 2} having a thickness of at most 40 micrometers {5.22-58.7 µm}; ([0094]-[0097] and [0100])
(b) fixing said first pattern {adhesive 3} on said first surface by treating said liquid pre-polymer {adhesive droplets 3} on said first surface to produce an at least partially cured patterned layer of polymer {adhesive 3}, said polymer having a viscosity of at least 10,000cP {pre-curing the adhesive droplets 3 at first UV source 14}; (see [0152])
(c) after said at least partially cured patterned layer {adhesive 3} of polymer is rendered tacky, pressure-contacting said at least partially cured
patterned layer {adhesive 3} of polymer with the contacting surface of the
porous substrate {substrate 4}, to adhere said at least partially cured patterned layer {adhesive 3} of polymer to said contacting surface {before fully curing the adhesive droplets 3, the pre-cured adhesive droplets 3 are pressed onto the substrate 4}; and (see [0152] and [0153])
(d) separating said contacting surface and said substrate portion of said
metal foil {foil 2} to selectively transfer a portion of said transfer portion {transfer ply 21} of said metal foil {foil 2} to said contacting surface, to produce the selective metallic pattern {metal layer 25} on the porous substrate {substrate 4} {separating the carrier ply 22}. (see [0154])
Claim 16: Kosalla teaches the adhesive droplets 3 are selectively deposited onto the transfer ply 21 of the foil 2 using an ink jet printing method ([0151] and [0155]).
Claim 17: The adhesive droplets 3 or adhesive 3 of Kosalla are adhesives; therefore, it is interpreted that they are tacky.
Claims 18 and 19: Kosalla teaches UV curing process to treat the adhesive droplets 3 ([0152] and [0153]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosalla et al. (US 2018/0072045 A1) as evidenced by Millipore Sigma.
Kosalla teaches the claimed invention as set forth above.
Claim 3: Kosalla teaches the adhesive 3 comprises 2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyldiphenyl phosphine oxide [0059]. Evidence shows that 2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyldiphenyl phosphine oxide is a photoinitiator (see General Description on page 3 of Millipore Sigma).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosalla et al. (US 2018/0072045 A1) as evidenced by Wu et al. (US 2022/0089913 A1).
Kosalla teaches the claimed invention as set forth above.
Claim 20: Kosalla teaches the varnish layer 24 comprises nitrocellulose, polyacrylate and polyurethane copolymer [0096]. Evidence shows that polyurethane acrylate polymer is an adhesive material (see [0023] of Wu). Kosalla teaches the primer layer 26 comprises polyacrylate vinyl acetate copolymer [0100]. Evidence shows that acrylic adhesive containing vinyl acetate monomer is an adhesive material (see [0024] of Wu).
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosalla et al. (US 2018/0072045 A1) in view of Wright et al. (US 2013/0280579 A1).
Kosalla teaches the claimed invention as set forth above.
Claim 7: Kosalla teaches paper as the suitable example of the substrate 4 [0025], but does not teach fabric or textile as a material for the substrate 4. Wright teaches cold foil printing, hot foil printing, or kiss-cut die cutting may be used to pattern metal foil conductive traces on substrates, and lists paper, plastic and fabric as suitable examples of materials for the substrate [0106]. Wright shows that fabric is an equivalent material known in the art. Therefore, because these two materials (paper and fabric) were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute paper for fabric.
Claim 13: Kosalla teaches the thickness of the adhesive 3 is 0.5-20 µm on at least one subregion [0049]; and this is interpreted as the thickness of the adhesive 3 can be different in some other subregions; thus, the thickness of the adhesive is not limited to 0.5-20 µm. With respect to the thickness of the adhesive 3, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the thickness of the adhesive 3; and the motivation would be to control the transfer property the metal layer 25 onto the substrate 4, and to control the adhesion strength of between the substrate 4 and the metal layer 25. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Kosalla teaches after pre-curing the adhesive 3 [0152], and before fully curing the adhesive 3 [0153], the adhesive 3 side of the transfer ply 21 is pressed onto the substrate 4 via a press roller 16 [0152]. It is interpreted that some of the fully uncured adhesive 3 wick into the substrate 4 because at the time of pressing the adhesive 3 is not fully cured and the substrate 4 is paper which is a porous material. With respect to the claimed thickness of extent, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the thickness to enhance the adhesion strength between the substrate 4 and adhesive 3. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Kosalla teaches paper as the suitable example of the substrate 4 [0025], but does not teach fabric or textile as a material for the substrate 4. Wright teaches cold foil printing, hot foil printing, or kiss-cut die cutting may be used to pattern metal foil conductive traces on substrates, and lists paper, plastic and fabric as suitable examples of materials for the substrate [0106]. Wright shows that fabric is an equivalent material known in the art. Therefore, because these two materials (paper and fabric) were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute paper for fabric.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETELHEM SHEWAREGED whose telephone number is (571)272-1529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7am-4:30pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached on 571-272-1291. 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.
BS
March 21, 2025
/BETELHEM SHEWAREGED/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1785