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 .
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naruse et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0360745 A1, cited in IDS submitted July 17, 2024) in view of either of Bae et al. (Korean Patent Publication No. KR 19-2017-0075565, machine language translation provided and cited below) or Chung et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0068787 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Naruse discloses a collecting filter (FIG. 5D, [0045] of Naruse, article comprising resist #11 arranged on surface of filter #10) comprising: a filter membrane having a porous structure to filter a nanocarbon material from a dispersion medium containing the nanocarbon material (FIG. 5D, [0045] of Naruse, filter #10 is capable of filtering CNTs), the filter membrane having one surface (FIG. 5D, [0045] of Naruse, filter #10 has an upper surface); and a dense film formed on the one surface and having an opening through which the dispersion medium passes (FIG. 5D, [0045] of Naruse, resist formed on upper surface of filter #10 includes groove portions #11a; [0052] of Naruse, dispersion medium including CNTs passes through groove portions #11a), the dense film having a denseness to block passage of the dispersion medium in a portion different from the opening (FIG. 5E, [0052] of Naruse, CNTs in dispersion are captured in groove portions #11a).
Naruse does not specifically disclose that the opening has a first width at an inlet of the dispersion medium opposite to the filter membrane and a second width at a bottom side adjacent to the filter membrane, and the first width is smaller than the second width. Naruse, however, discloses that shapes other than those disclosed can be used ([0063] of Naruse). Naruse also discloses transferring the CNT pattern to a substrate wherein the exposed upper surface of the pattern opposite the filter contacts the substrate (i.e., wherein the conductive pattern formed by the CNT dispersion is inverted on the substrate surface) (FIGS. 5E-5G of Naruse). Bae discloses conductive patterns formed on the substrate in the shape of an inverted trapezoid (Abstract, [0069] of Bae). According to Bae, the conductive pattern can be formed from CNTs ([0114] of Bae). Chung similarly discloses conductive patterns formed on a substrate having an inverted trapezoid shape (FIG. 1, [0049] of Chung). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form grooves having a trapezoidal shape (i.e., having a greater width at the bottom side adjacent the filter) in the resist of the article of Naruse to provide a conductive pattern via transfer to a substrate having an inverted trapezoid cross-sectional shape since Bae and Chung each establish that it was known to form such conductive patterns such a shape at the time the invention was made. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Bae does not specifically disclose that the opening has an aspect ratio which is a ratio of a depth of the opening to the first width, and the aspect ratio is more than or equal to 0.1. Bae, however, discloses that the maximum depth of the groove in which the conductive pattern is formed is 0.2 to 2 times that maximum width of the groove ([0076] of Bae). Since the minimum width (i.e., the first width) is necessarily smaller than the maximum width, the ratio of the depth to minimum width would necessarily be greater than the ratio of the depth to maximum width or greater than 0.2:1.
Regarding claim 3, Bae does not specifically disclose that the first width is 50 µm or less. Bae, however, discloses that maximum width of the groove in which the conductive pattern is formed is 0.1 to 3 µm ([0076] of Bae). Since the maximum width is necessarily greater than the minimum width (i.e., the first width), the minimum width of the conductive pattern would be <50 µm.
Regarding claim 4, Naruse discloses that the dense film has a thickness within a range of 10 µm or more and 50 µm or less ([0046] of Naruse, resist #11 has a thickness of 10 µm).
Regarding claim 5, Bae does not specifically disclose that a ratio of the second width to the first width is greater than 1 and less than 2. Bae, however, discloses grooves having a ratio of height to maximum width of 0.2 to 2 ([0076] of Bae) wherein the side surface of the groove has an inclination angle of 0 to 15 degrees ([0077] of Bae). Bae therefore clearly teaches a range of second width to first width ratios that that overlaps with that recited in claim 5 which would render the claimed range obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the courts have held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naruse in view of either of Bae or Chung and further in view of Jung et al. (Korean Patent Publication No. KR 10-2096293 B1, machine language translation provided and cited below).
Regarding claim 6, Naruse discloses a method of manufacturing a transparent conducting film including a pattern made of a nanocarbon material using a collecting filter (Abstract, FIGS. 5A-5G of Naruse, method of forming CNT lines on transparent substrate using an article comprising a filter #10), the method comprising: arranging the collecting filter such that the dense film is oriented toward an upstream side of a supply path for a dispersion medium containing the nanocarbon material and the filter membrane is oriented toward a downstream side of the dispersion medium in the supply path (FIG. 5D, [0052] of Naruse, dispersion medium including CNTs filtered through the article from the resist side); collecting the nanocarbon material within the opening by causing the dispersion medium to pass through the collecting filter (FIG. 5E, [0054] of Naruse, CNTs captured inside groove portion #11a of resist #11); after collecting the nanocarbon material, placing a transparent base material on the dense film of the collecting filter (FIG. 5F, [0056] of Naruse, resist arranged on surface of substrate #1; [0030] of Naruse, substrate is transparent); and removing the collecting filter from the transparent base material to transfer the nanocarbon material to the transparent base material so as to form the pattern using the nanocarbon material (FIG. 5G of Naruse).
Naruse does not specifically disclose arranging the article in a chamber and supplying the dispersion medium into the chamber. Jung, however, discloses a method of filtering a CNT dispersion using a membrane filter (Abstract of Jung) wherein the CNT dispersion is filtered in an enclosure comprising a tank #10 supplied with the CNT dispersion and a chamber #20 with the membrane filter #11 provided therebetween (FIG. 2, [0054] of Jung). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention arrange the modified filter in a chamber and supply the CNT dispersion medium into the chamber since Jung establishes that it was known to use a chamber to filter CNT dispersions. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Naruse also does not specifically disclose that the article is a collecting filter according to claim 1. As set forth above with respect to the rejection of claim 1, however, either of Bae or Chung suggest modifying the filter of Naruse to arrive at the filter according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571)270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746