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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on 06/04/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/12/2024, 12/01/2025 and 04/08/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomoto et al. (JP 2020-076153) in view of Nakayama (US 2012/0315439).
Regarding claim 1, Nomoto teaches a method of manufacturing a conductive member and the conductive member which includes a base material and a transparent conductive film formed on the base material (Paragraph [0017]; Fig. 1). The base materials are formed from glass, PET, PEN, polyacrylonitrile, polystyrene, LCP, PEI and polycarbonate which are all suitable materials for the non-heat-resistant substrate materials of the instant claims (Paragraph [0019]; Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraph [0075]). The transparent conductive film is formed from indium oxide (Paragraph [0027]).
Nomoto is silent with respect to the transparent conductive film formed from indium oxide being in the form of crystalline particles and having a carrier mobility of 70 cm2/V*s or more.
Nakayama teaches transparent conductive films, more specifically, crystalline transparent conductive films containing indium oxide as a main component, and cerium, exhibiting low resistance, high carrier mobility and small surface roughness (Paragraph [0001]). The films include indium oxide as a crystal particle and a cerium content of 0.3% to 9% allowing for the increase in carrier mobility (Paragraphs [0061]; [0094]). Furthermore, the films are preferably formed from ion plating methods in a temperature range of room temperature to about 300°C which is possible due to the ion plating method having sufficient kinetic energy allowing for crystallization to progress even at lower temperatures (Paragraph [0051]; [0094]). The resulting carrier mobility from the inclusion of cerium via an ion plating method is 35 cm2/V*s or higher (Paragraph [0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the transparent conductive films of Nomoto such that they are formed form crystal particles with a cerium content of 0.3% to 9% by an ion plating method in a temperature range of room temperature to about 300°C allowing for low resistance, low surface roughness and high carrier mobility, such as higher than 35 cm2/V*s or higher as taught by Nakayama.
Regarding claim 2, Nomoto teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the substrates may be formed from PET.
Regarding claim 3, Nomoto teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the substrates may be formed from PET, PEN, polyacrylonitrile, polystyrene, LCP, PEI and polycarbonate which are all suitable materials for the non-heat-resistant substrate materials of the instant claims.
Regarding claim 4, Nomoto teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the conductive films are formed from an indium oxide particle with cerium, which would result in the films having a proportion of 100%.
Regarding claim 5, Nomoto teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Nakayama further teaches the indium oxide particles having a diameter of 3 to 6 microns, which would result in an area of greater than 0.5 microns squared (Paragraph [0099]).
Regarding claim 6, Nomoto teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the indium oxide is provided with cerium in order to increase the carrier mobility.
Regarding claim 7, Nomoto teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Nomoto further teaches the resistance being 4*10-4 Ω*cm or less (Paragraph [0029]).
Regarding claim 8, Nomoto teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Nomoto is silent with respect to the films having a sheet resistance of 25 Ω/square or less.
However, this property appears to be dependent on the materials and methods of forming the transparent conductive films of the instant claims such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that identical materials must have identical properties. MPEP 2112.01: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In the instant case, the transparent conductive films are formed from an indium oxide film which preferably doped with cerium in a content range of 1% to 3% (Instant Specification, PGPPUB, Paragraphs [0083]-[0084]).
The combination of Nomoto and Nakayama teaches these materials as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the transparent conductive films of Nomoto and Nakayama teaches identical materials to that of applicant’s invention, and would, therefore, have identical properties including having a sheet resistance of 25 Ω/square or less.
Regarding claim 9, Nomoto teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Nomoto further teaches an intermediate layer being formed on the base layer and between the base layer and the transparent conductive layer (Paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 10, Nomoto teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Nomoto teaches the total light transmittance of the films being 80% or more.
Regarding claim 11, Nomoto teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Nomoto teaches the total light transmittance of the films being 80% or more.
Regarding claim 12, Nomoto teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Nomoto further teaches the films being used for portable mobile devices and OLEDs (Paragraph [0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 PM.
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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights