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 .
The specification amendment of April 8, 2026 has been received and entered. The amendment to the claims of October 15, 2026 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claim 5 is canceled and claims 1-4, 6-7 and new claims 8-20 are pending for examination.
Specification
The objections to the disclosure as provided with the Office Action of July 16, 2025 are withdrawn due to the corrections provided in the April 8, 026 amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 8-13, these claims provide features of pretreating the polymer fibers by immersing in a silver bath (claim 8), that is a silver salt solution (claim 9), that comprises silver nitride (claim 10), that is a mixture of ammonia and silver salt (claim 11) and further has glucose (claim 12). However, the support for these amendments would be in the description in the specification as filed as to how the silver seed crystals are provided, but this description only provides for the use of a specific silver containing baths with silver nitrate, ammonia solution, and glucose (note 0041, 0068-0069), while each of claims 8-13 would allow for broader solutions (such as any silver salt, or without glucose, or without ammonia, etc.). Therefore, the claims are broader than what is supported by the disclose as originally filed, and thus the claims contain new matter.
Claims 14-20, these claim have providing a two step activation protocol (claim 14) and with excess tin dissolving (claim 14), where a hydrochloric acid acceleration bath is used in the dissolving (claim 15), the activation has sequentially immersing the fibers in first the sensitization bath and then the activation bath (claim 16), where the sensitization bath has a mix of tin chloride and HCl (claim 17), where the activation bath has a mixture of palladium chloride and HCl (claim 18). However, the support for these amendments would be in the description in the specification as filed as to how the Pd seeding is provided, but this description only provides for the use of a specific two step process with treatment with a tin chloride-HCl solution and palladium chloride-HCl solution, and specific accelerator bath with HCl (note 0071), while each of claims 14-20 would allow for broader features than what is claimed (such as for claim 14, not requiring HCl in each of the baths and for the dissolving, etc.). Therefore, the claims are broader than what is supported by the disclose as originally filed, and thus the claims contain new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejection of claims 1-5 and 7 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) is withdrawn due to the change is scope of claims 1-5 and 7 in the amendment of October 15, 2025.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 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) is withdrawn due to the acceptable declaration filed under 37 CFR 1.130(a) as discussed in the Response to Arguments section below.
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 1-4 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu, et al “Silver nanoparticle catalyst for electroless Ni deposition and the promotion of its adsorption onto PET substrate” (hereinafter Lu article) in view of Cleary (US 2017/0171982) and Aminu, et al “Probing Adhesion of Metallic Nanoparticles on Polymeric Fibrous and Flat Architectures” (hereinafter Aminu article).
Claims 1, 3, 7-12: Lu article teaches a method of electroless plating, where a polymeric substrate is provided (note the abstract, using PET films as substrate). It is indicated that the non-catalytic substrate (such as the described PET polymer substrate) has to be catalyzed before electroless deposition occurs (note page 519). It is noted Pd colloid is commonly used as a seeding catalyst for the substrate, but that Pd has various problems, including the cost (note page 519). Lu article describes using silver catalyst instead of Pd (note pages 519-520). Silver activation is provided by immersing the substrate in an aqueous solution (silver bath, as desired by claim 8) containing AgNO3 (silver salt of silver nitrate, as desired by claims 9, 10), ammonia (from the NH3-H2O (giving a silver salt, ammonia mixture desired by claim 11), and glucose (as desired by claim 12) (note page 520, section 2.2). This treatment applies silver catalyst (seed) in the form of silver nanoparticles on the substrate (note figure 2, page 521). It is further indicated that the applied silver nanoparticles are crystals (polycrystalline) (note figure 8, page 523). The silver will catalyze further electroless deposition (here of nickel) (note section 2.4). Plating is described as provided to 926 nm thick (note Table 1) and adhered to the substrate, with improvement over use of Pd catalyst (note page 524).
As to treating polymeric fibers (of PAN as desired by claim 7), produced via an electrospinning process, with the seed crystals of silver, and producing metallic nanostructures (such as of copper, as desired by claim 7) on and adhered to surfaces of the pretreated polymeric fibers, where a conformal coating is formed on the surfaces of the fibers (as desired by claim 3).
Cleary describes the known use of silver nanoparticles as well as Pd nanoparticles as catalyst for electroless plating (note 0007), where the silver nanoparticles can be provided using an aqueous solution with silver salt such as silver nitrate (source of silver) and glucose (reducing agent) (note c012, 0013, 0017, 0044), where the nanoparticles are applied to the substrate by immersing the substrate in the solution to deposit the nanoparticles on the substate (so pretreating the substrate with the silver nanoparticles or Pd nanoparticles), and then providing electroless plating to apply metal such as copper or nickel over the nanoparticles that adheres to the substrate (note 0007, 0026,0038, 0039, 0045-0047), the plating can be uniform and planar over all surfaces (note 0047). A variety of substrates of a variety of materials including a variety of polymers and containing fiber can be used (note 0019-0023).
Aminu article teaches a method for electroless plating polymeric substrates (note abstract, page 2750), including producing polymeric fibers (PAN fibers as desired by claim 7, as the substrate material) via an electrospinning process (note page 2750). The fibers are pretreated with catalyst material of Pd seed crystals (note page 2750). Further, metallic nanostructures (copper nanostructures as desired by claim 7) are produced on and adhered to surfaces of the polymeric fibers that have been seeded via an electroless deposition process where electroless copper plating is performed (note abstract, page 2750, page 2752, page 2755, figure 2). 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).
Therefore, it would have ben obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu article to further use substrates of polymeric fibers of PAN produced via electrospinning, to be pretreated with the silver seed crystal catalyst, and producing copper metallic nanostructures on and adherent to the polymeric fibers via electroless deposition, where a conformal coating is formed on the surfaces of the fibers as suggested by Cleary and Aminu article with an expectation of providing a desirable lower coat pretreatment to a substrate to be plated, where Lu article describes how silver seed crystal nanoparticles can be desirably used on a polymer material substrate to act as a catalyst for further electroless plating with improved results and lower cost than using Pd catalyst, and Cleary further indicates that it is known to use either silver nanoparticles or Pd nanoparticles deposited on a wide variety of polymer substates to act as catalyst for electroless plating adherent coatings to substrates, where the electroless plating can be of either copper or nickel, and give conformal/uniform coating, and Aminu article indicates a specific polymer substrate on which catalyst is deposited (here described as Pd catalyst) before electroless plating with copper can be PAN polymer fibers formed by electrospinning, and indicates how conformal electroless plating of copper can be desirably provided over the catalyst that also is in the form of metallic nanostructures of copper.
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), suggesting that this would occur when performing the process.
Claim 4: Aminu article teaches performing an alkaline hydrolysis treatment on the fibers prior to the electroless deposition process using NaOH treatment (note page 2750), indicating a suggested pretreatment before treating the PAN fibers.
Claim 13: As to preventing photocatalytic reduction of silver during the immersing in the silver bath, Lu article just has immersing with the materials described in the silver bath (note page 520) as does Cleary (note 0046). Since no photocatalytic reduction is indicated as required, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the process without photocatalytic reduction.
Claim 6 and optionally claim 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu article in view of Cleary and Aminu article as applied to claims 1-4 and 7-13 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: Lu article indicates pretreating the substrate with silver nanoparticles before plating as discussed for claim 1 above. Cleary notes the similar use of silver or Pd nanoparticles for use as discussed for claim 1 above. 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 Lu article in view of Cleary and Aminu article to specifically optimize/control the density of the seed crystals (silver or 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 Cleary would indicate how silver particles/seed can be used in a similar fashion to Pd, 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, and similar effects would be expected for silver.
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, including silver (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 Lu article in view of Cleary and Aminu 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 article teaches to apply Pd seed crystals and electrolessly plate copper for complete coverage, Lu article and Cleary would indicate how silver seed crystals/particles can be similarly used and Radi indicates that when providing seed catalyzing before electroless plating of copper, it is known to optimize the density of the activated seed (which can include silver nanoparticles) 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.
Claim 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aminu, et al “Probing Adhesion of Metallic Nanoparticles on Polymeric Fibrous and Flat Architectures” (hereinafter Aminu article) in view of Grunwald et al (US 3694250) and EITHER alone OR as evidenced by Cohen et al (US 4737446).
Claim 14-19: Aminu article teaches a method for electroless plating polymeric substrates (note abstract, page 2750), including producing polymeric fibers (PAN fibers as desired by claim 19, as the substrate material) via an electrospinning process (note page 2750). The fibers are pretreated with catalyst/activating material of Pd seed crystals (note page 2750). Further, metallic nanostructures (copper nanostructures as desired by claim 7) are produced on and adhered to surfaces of the polymeric fibers that have been seeded via an electroless deposition process where electroless copper plating is performed (note abstract, page 2750, page 2752, page 2755, figure 2, giving copper deposition with copper nanostructures as desired by claim 19). Aminu article further describes that the pretreating/activating of the fibers with the Pd seed crystals is a two step activation protocol comprising sensitization in a stannous chloride bath (since in the bath, understood to be immersed in the sensitization bath, as desired by claim 16) and activation in a palladium chloride bath (since in the bath, understood to be immersed in the activation bath as desired by claim 16) (note page 2750). The sensitization bath is described as comprising a mixture of tin chloride (stannous chloride) and HCl (as desired by claim 17) (note page 2750 and Table 1). The activation bath is described as comprising a mixture of palladium chloride and HCl (as desired by claim 18) (note page 2750 and Table 1).
As to further dissolving tin from the activated polymer fibers (with treating with an HCl acceleration bath (note claim 15)), and the sequence of the sensitization bath treatment before the activation bath treatment (claim 16),
Grunwald further describes how two step activation with Pd can be provided, describing how the substrate (here a copper surface) is first immersed in a solution of stannous chloride and HCl, and then immersed in a HCl solution of Pd chloride (note column 3, lines 60-75), where this is activation before providing copper electroless plating (note column 4, lines 35-45, column 1, lines 10-20). Grunwald further indicates to provide after the activation, and before the electroless plating, an accelerating treatment with a HCl solution, by immersing in a bath of HCl solution (note column 4, lines 25-35).
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 provide treating the activated polymeric fibers with an HCl activation bath as suggested by Grunwald with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since Aminu article provides two step activation process with tin chloride and palladium chloride before copper electroless plating, and further would indicate that the fibers can be acceptably exposed to HCl, since HCl present in the sensitization bath and activating bath, and Grunwald indicates that when providing a similar two step activation process before copper electroless plating, it is suggested to treat the substrate with an HCl acceleration bath (as desired by present claim 15), and since this is the process indicated by claim 15 as providing the excess tin dissolving of claim 14, the same excess tin dissolving is also understood to occur. Grunwald would further suggest that sequentially immersing the substate in first the sensitization bath and then the activation bath (as in claim 16) would be predictably acceptable, since it would be a conventionally known order of process steps to follow.
Optionally, further as evidenced by Cohen, Cohen further describes how, after tin chloride (stannous chloride) applied to a substrate from a solution containing SnCl2 and HCl, immersion of the substrate in an HCl solution will remove excess stannous chloride (so tin, from the SnCl2, would be removed) (note column 13, line 60 to column 14, line 5).
Therefore, it further would have been understood to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that when providing the HCl acceleration treatment of Aminu article in view of Grunwald, excess tin would also be removed, from the evidentiary teaching of Cohen.
Claim 20: Aminu article provides that the electroless copper deposition process comprises immersing the activated fibers in a solution containing copper salt (note page 2750, and the materials of Table II).
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).
Sereshti, et al “Electroless-coated magnetic three-dimensional graphene with silver nanoparticles used for the determination of pesticides in fruit samples” notes how silver nanoparticles deposited from a solution with AgNo3, ammonia, and glucose in water deposits crystal silver nanoparticles (note sections 2.4, 3.1.2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 15, 2026 have been fully considered.
(A) Note the adjustment to the rejections due to the amendments to the claims, including the use of new art and the new 35 USC 112 rejections.
(B) The rejections using Aminu, et al “Well-Adhered Copper Nanocubes on Electrospun Polymeric Fibers” (hereinafter Aminu/Brockway article) have been withdrawn due to the acceptable declaration filed October 15, 2026 under 37 CFR 1.130(a), which invokes the exception under 35 USC 102(b)(a), such that the Aminu/Brockway reference is not prior art under the exception of 35 USC 102(b)(1)(A).
(C) As to the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections using the primary reference to Aminu article as to claims 1-13 are now provided, it is argued that it does not provide the silver seed crystal use. The Examiner notes this argument, and as to claims 1-4 and 6-13 as now provided, the new references to Lu article and Cleary are additionally provided as to these features, with Lu article now used as the primary reference.
(D) As to the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections using the primary reference to Aminu article as to new claims 14-20, while Aminu article does not describe the dissolving excess tin/providing HCl accelerator treatment, the new references to Grunwald, and optionally Cohen have been provided as to this new requirement.
Therefore, the above rejections are maintained.
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 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
Prosecution Insights