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/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-19, drawn to a transfer printing assembly, classified in CPC B41F 16/00.
II. Claim 20, drawn to a method for preparing a solar cell, classified in CPC H10F 71/138.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions II and I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the apparatus, Group I, can be used to practice another and materially different process such as a method of preparing silver circuits to be spliced between display screens.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification
The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter
The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
The inventions have acquired an examination burden that includes the effort required to apply the art by making and discussing all appropriate grounds of rejection. Multiple inventions, such as those in the present application, normally require additional reference material and further discussion for each additional invention examined. Concurrent examination of multiple inventions would thus typically involve a significant burden even if all searches were coextensive. However, in the present application, the inventions require a different field of search and consequently the search is not coextensive.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Ryan Schermerhorn on September 8, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, Claims 1-19. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Rejoinder
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Onishi (JP2011049514 cited in IDS with references to the machine English translation provided herewith).
Regarding Claim 1, Onishi teaches a transfer printing assembly (Figs. 1-2; [0001]), comprising:
a carrier (Fig. 1-2- flexible resin sheet 11) comprising a first surface having a first groove (Fig. 2a- grooves 13a); and
a first conducting wire (Fig. 2a- wire 13) at least partially disposed within the first groove (Fig. 2a),
the first conducting wire and a wall of the first groove defining a first receiving cavity at a side of the first conducting wire adjacent to an opening of the first groove (Fig. 2a),
the first receiving cavity being configured to accommodate slurry material (Fig. 2a- conductive paste 12; [0027]-[0029]);
wherein the first conducting wire is detachable from the first groove under an action of external energy ([0059]-[0062]- discussing optional peeling step).
Regarding Claim 2, Onishi teaches an entirety of the first conducting wire is located in the first groove (Figs. 2a- wire 13 in groove 13a).
Regarding Claim 3, Onishi further teaches the first conducting wire partially protrudes out from the opening of the first groove (Fig. 2a), a cross-section of the first conducting wire has an end that is located away from the first groove, and a distance between the end of the cross-section and the opening of the first groove is greater than 0µm and less than or equal to 200µm ([0063]- Example 1- diameter of wire- 50 µm, groove depth- 65 µm, which satisfies the instantly claimed relationship).
Regarding Claim 4, Onishi further teaches the carrier comprises a second surface opposite to the first surface (Figs. 2a-c- opposite surface of resin sheet 11 (not shown); a peripheral surface of the first conducting wire comprises an inner portion that is adjacent to the second surface (Figs. 2a-c- wire 13, 23, 33), and the inner portion is in contact with a portion of the wall of the first groove (Figs. 2a-c- wires 13, 23, 33 contacting both walls of grooves 13a, 23a, 33a); a size of the first conducting wire along a first direction is less than or equal to a size of the first groove along the first direction (Fig. 2b- showing tapered wire 23), and the first direction is from the first surface to the second surface.
Regarding Claim 5, Onishi further teaches the peripheral surface of the first conducting wire comprises an outer portion that is away from the second surface (Fig. 2a- opposite face of wire 13), the minimum distance between the outer portion and the opening of the first groove is in a range from 0 to 200µm ([0063]- Example 1- diameter of wire- 50 µm, groove depth- 65 µm, thus the distance between the outer portion of the wire and the opening of the groove is 15 µm).
Regarding Claim 6, Onishi further teaches 0.25L1≤L2≤L1, wherein L1 is the maximum distance between the outer portion and the opening of the first groove, and L2 is the minimum distance between the outer portion and the opening of the first groove ([0063]- Example 1- diameter of wire- 50 µm, groove depth- 65 µm, thus L1= 35 µm L2≤=15 µm which satisfies the instantly claimed relationship).
Regarding Claim 7, Onishi further teaches the size of the first conducting wire along the first direction ranges from 1µm to 220µm [0043].
Regarding Claim 8, Onishi further teaches a size of the opening of the first groove along a second direction is greater than or equal to a size of the first conducting wire along the second direction, and the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction ([0063]- Example 1- diameter of wire- 50 µm, groove depth- 65 µm, which satisfies the instantly claimed relationship).
Regarding Claim 9, Onishi further teaches the size of the first conducting wire along the second direction ranges from 5µm to 220µm [0043].
Regarding Claim 10, Onishi further teaches the first surface of the carrier has a plurality of first grooves spaced apart along the second direction (Fig. 1), and the transfer printing assembly comprises a plurality of first conducting wires spaced apart along the second direction (Fig. 1); the plurality of first grooves and the plurality of first conducting wires all extend along a third direction (Fig. 1); the plurality of first conducting wires are at least partially disposed within the plurality of first grooves in a one-to-one correspondence (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Onishi further teaches a first distance between any two adjacent first conducting wires ranges from 200µm to 2000µm ([0020]- groove intervals are not particularly limited; [0063]- grooves formed at 2mm intervals).
Regarding Claim 12, Onishi further teaches the first conducting wire comprises a main section and a widened section, and a size of the widened section along the second direction is greater than a size of the main section along the second direction (Fig. 2b- showing triangular wire; [0044]- the shape of the wire is not particularly limited).
Regarding Claim 13, Onishi teaches the groove interval is not particularly limited [0020] thus meeting the instant limitation of the carrier comprises a central area and edge areas, and the edge areas are located at opposite sides of the central area along the second direction; the plurality of first grooves comprise edge grooves and central grooves, the plurality of first conducting wires comprise edge conducting wires and central conducting wires; the edge grooves and the edge conducting wires therein are distributed in the edge areas, and the central grooves and the central conducting wires therein are distributed in the central area; the edge areas comprise an avoidance area, the avoidance area spans across at least two edge grooves and at least two edge conducting wires therein, separating the at least two edge grooves each into at least two sub-grooves spaced apart from each other, and separating the at least two edge conducting wires each into at least two sub-wires spaced apart from each other.
Regarding Claim 14, Onishi further teaches intersecting grooves [0021] and wires contained therein [0026] and the interval between grooves is not particularly limited [0020] thus meeting the instant limitation of a connection conducting wire, wherein the first surface of the carrier also has a connection groove, the connection conducting wire is at least partially disposed within the connection groove; the connection groove and the connection conducting wire therein extend along an edge of the avoidance area; the connection groove is in communication with same sided sub-grooves of the at least two edge grooves, and the connection conducting wire is connected to same sided sub-wires of the at least two edge conducting wires; the connection conducting wire and a wall of the connection groove define a connection receiving cavity at a side of the connection conducting wire adjacent to an opening of the connection groove; the connection receiving cavity is configured to accommodate the slurry material; the connection conducting wire is detachable from the connection groove under an action of external energy.
Regarding Claim 15, Onishi further teaches the first conducting wire comprises an electrically conductive core [0041] and an anti-oxidation layer surrounding the core [0041], and a material of the anti-oxidation layer comprises metal [0041].
Regarding Claim 16, Onishi further teaches a material of the conductive core comprises copper or aluminum [0041]; and/or a material of the anti-oxidation layer comprises at least one of silver, tin, lead, titanium, or nickel [0041].
Regarding Claim 17, Onishi further teaches the first conducting wire comprises electrically conductive particles, and adjacent conductive particles are in contact with each other [0041].
Regarding Claim 18, Onishi further teaches the carrier is a flexible member [0021].
Regarding Claim 19, Onishi further teaches the first surface of the carrier also has a second groove intersecting with the first groove [0021]; the transfer printing assembly further comprises a second conducting wire intersecting with the first conducting wire [0026]; the second conducting wire is at least partially disposed within the second groove [0026]; the second conducting wire and a wall of the second groove define a second receiving cavity at a side of the second conducting wire adjacent to an opening of the second groove [0021]; the second receiving cavity is configured to accommodate the slurry material [0026]; the second conducting wire is detachable from the second groove under an action of external energy ([0059]-[0062]- discussing optional peeling step).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrianna Konves whose telephone number is (571)272-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 MST (Arizona).
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 9/8/26
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights