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 .
Claims 1-7 are pending for examination as filed July 16, 2024.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: (a) at paragraph 0001, it should be clarified that 17/395,746 is now abandoned. (b) Figures 11, 14C, and 15D have not been discussed in the Detailed Description of the Invention section.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Aminu, et al “Probing Adhesion of Metallic Nanoparticles on Polymeric Fibrous and Flat Architectures” (hereinafter Aminu article).
Claim 1, 7: Aminu article teaches a method including producing polymeric fibers (PAN fibers as desired by claim 7) via an electrospinning process (note page 2750). Further, metallic nanostructures (copper nanostructures as desired by claim 7) are produced on and adhered to surfaces of the polymeric fibers via an electroless deposition process (note abstract, page 2750, page 2752, page 2755, figure 2).
Claim 2: Aminu article indicates that there can be at least some discrete distributed nanoparticles on the surface of the fibers, so the metallic nanostructures define discrete distributed nanoparticles on the surface of the fibers (note page 2752, figure 2, noting the interspaced crystals of octahedral morphologies).
Claim 3: Aminu article indicates that the metallic nanostructures can define a conformal coating on the surfaces of the fibers (note page 2752, figure 2, where complete surface coverage indicated that can be conformal as shown in the figure 2).
Claim 4: Aminu article teaches performing an alkaline hydrolysis treatment on the fibers prior to the electroless deposition process (note page 2750).
Claim 5: Aminu article teaches pretreating the fibers with seed crystals of palladium prior to the electroless deposition process (note page 2750).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Aminu, et al “Well-Adhered Copper Nanocubes on Electrospun Polymeric Fibers” (hereinafter Aminu/Brockway article).
Claim 1, 7: Aminu/Brockway article teaches a method including producing polymeric fibers (PAN fibers as desired by claim 7) via an electrospinning process (note pages 2-3, figure 1). Further, metallic nanostructures (copper nanostructures as desired by claim 7) are produced on and adhered to surfaces of the polymeric fibers via an electroless deposition process (note abstract, figure 1, pages 3-4).
Claim 2: Aminu/Brockway article indicates the metallic nanostructures define discrete distributed nanoparticles on the surface of the fibers (note figure 1, figure 3, page 2).
Claim 4: Aminu/Brockway article teaches performing an alkaline hydrolysis treatment on the fibers prior to the electroless deposition process (note page 3, where the immersion of the samples in 1M solution of NaoH at temperature between 45-50 degrees C for 15 minutes understood to give alkaline hydrolysis treatment, note page 2 indicating giving alkaline hydrolysis treatment, and as well, this is the same treatment described by applicant in the specification as filed at 0068 to give such hydrolysis treatment).
Claim 5: Aminu/Brockway article teaches pretreating the fibers with seed crystals of silver prior to the electroless deposition process (note page 3, also understood to give such seeding as giving the same treatment process described by applicant in the specification as filed at 0068).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 6 and optionally claim 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aminu article as applied to claims 1-5 and 7 above, and further in view of EITHER Lim, et al “Optimization of Catalyzing Process on Ta Substrate for Copper Electroless Deposition Using Electrochemical Method” (hereinafter Lim article) OR Radi et al (US 2015/0366072).
Claim 6: Aminu article teaches pretreating the polymeric fibers with seed crystals of noble metals (palladium) prior to the copper electroless deposition process (note page 2750), and notes that there can be a complete surface coverage by the copper (note page 2752). As to further controlling the resulting metallic nanostructure distribution on the fibers by controlling the density of the seed crystals,
Using Lim article: Lim article teaches pretreating a substate prior to electroless plating with copper, where the pretreatment is by depositing palladium particles/catalyst/seed crystals (note pages D142-D143), where it is indicted to optimize the palladium particle density before plating (note page D143), where Lim article describes how the density and size distribution of Pd particles on a surface govern not only the minimum thickness of formation of a continuous ELD (electroless deposition) film, but also adhesion strength, where at the initial stages of copper electroless deposition, Cu grows in three dimensions and covers Pd particles preferentially, which growth mode continues until the Cu clusters coalesce and thus cover the entire surface, followed by subsequent 2D growth normal to the surface, where the incubation time is the time to reach 2D growth mode from the start of the 3D growth, and is determined by the density and average size of the Pd particles (note page D142, figure 1, where figure 1 indicates how closer together particles would generally have a shorter incubation time, and thinner coat coverage before complete coverage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aminu article to specifically optimize/control the density of the seed crystals (Pd crystals) to control the resulting metallic nanostructure (copper particle) distribution on the fibers as suggested by Lim article with an expectation of providing a desirably covered fiber, since Aminu article teaches to apply Pd seed crystals and electrolessly plate copper for complete coverage, and Lim article indicates that when providing such Pd catalyzing before electroless plating of copper, it is known to optimize the density of the applied Pd to control the resulting nanostructure deposition/distribution of the copper since the density of the applied Pd acts to control the time and thickness needed for complete coverage.
Using Radi: Radi teaches pretreating a polymeric substate prior to electroless plating to form a metallic pattern by electroless plating, where the pretreatment is by giving an activated seed residue from nanoparticles that can be metal particles (note 0021, 0022, 0026), where it is indicted that the distribution density of the active seed residue can be controlled, by controlling amount of nanoparticles, and is desired to be close enough to maintain a pattern for subsequent electroless plating, where the control of distribution helps control the pattern fidelity, where electroless plating occurs where the activated seed is present, and plating can be of copper (note 0026).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aminu article to specifically optimize/control the density of the seed crystals (Pd crystals) to control the resulting metallic nanostructure (copper particle) distribution on the fibers as suggested by Radi with an expectation of providing a desirably covered fiber, since Aminu article teaches to apply Pd seed crystals and electrolessly plate copper for complete coverage, and Radi indicates that when providing seed catalyzing before electroless plating of copper, it is known to optimize the density of the activated seed to control the resulting nanostructure distribution of the copper since the density of the activated seed acts to control placement of the plating.
Optionally, as to claim 2: when providing the control such as discussed for claim 6 above, it would further be suggested that only discrete distributed nanoparticles on the fibers would be predictably and acceptably provided if desired, since when using Lim article it indicates how when controlling the distance between seed particles (density), the particles can be at such a distance as growth of plating particles on a seed particle can be provided, and could be stopped before combining to give full coverage based on the time of plating (note figure 1 of Lim article), and when using Radi, it indicates how particles can be provided of activated catalyst/seed particles and plating only where activated particles present (note 0026 of Radi) when desired.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aminu/Brockway article as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 above, and further in view of Radi et al (US 2015/0366072).
Claim 6: Aminu/Brockway article teaches pretreating the polymeric fibers with seed crystals of noble metals (silver) prior to the copper electroless deposition process (note page 3, and discussion of claim 5), and notes that there can be a discrete distributed nanoparticle coverage by the copper (note figure 1, figure 3, page 2). As to further controlling the resulting metallic nanostructure distribution on the fibers by controlling the density of the seed crystals,
Using Radi: Radi teaches pretreating a polymeric substate prior to electroless plating to form a metallic pattern by electroless plating, where the pretreatment is by giving an activated seed residue from nanoparticles that can be metal/silver particles (note 0021, 0022, 0026), where it is indicted that the distribution density of the active seed residue can be controlled, by controlling amount of nanoparticles, and is desired to be close enough to maintain a pattern for subsequent electroless plating, where the control of distribution helps control the pattern fidelity, where electroless plating occurs where the activated seed is present, and plating can be of copper (note 0026).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aminu/Brockway article to specifically optimize/control the density of the seed crystals (silver crystals) to control the resulting metallic nanostructure (copper particle) distribution on the fibers as suggested by Radi with an expectation of providing a desirably covered fiber, since Aminu/Brockway article teaches to apply silver seed crystals and electrolessly plate copper for discrete coverage, and Radi indicates that when providing seed (which can be silver) catalyzing before electroless plating such as of copper, it is known to optimize the density of the activated seed to control the resulting nanostructure distribution of the copper since the density of the activated seed acts to control placement of the plating, and thus to provide the discrete coverage of Aminu/Brockway article a low density of coverage would be provided to give separate nanoparticles of copper.
As to claim 3: when providing the control such as discussed for claim 6 above, it would further be suggested that conformal coverage would be predictably and acceptably provided if desired, since Radi it indicates how particles can be provided of activated catalyst/seed particles and plating only where activated particles present (note 0026 of Radi) when desired, and therefore, a higher density of catalyst can be provided if desired to coat the entire surface.
Zhang et al (US 2015/0287997) notes that electrospun fibers can be provided (note 0046-0048) and then the fibers provided with seeding and further electroless deposition of a first layer of metal such as copper, etc. (note 0050-0054, 0034-0035), where the first layer thickness can be nanometer in size (note 0036), where there can be a nm structure (note figure 2D, 0081-0082, 0078-0079).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718