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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-8 without traverse in the reply filed on 22 Jun. 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 22 Jun. 2026.
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 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.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (KR 2015/0022420 A, published 04 Mar. 2015, hereinafter Kang).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Kang teaches a nanowire ink containing silver (metal nanowires) (Abstract and claim 6) and a crosslinking agent (cross-linkable compound) (paragraphs 0063 and 0066). Kang teaches binding a hydrophilic compound to the nanowires (Abstract), and the hydrophilic compound is an amine (chemical structure in paragraph 0028 of the original Korean patent document, reproduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
218
398
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyagishima et al. (US Patent Application 2012/0088189 A1, published 12 Apr. 2012, hereinafter Miyagishima) in view of Ho et al. (US Patent Application 2012/0244294 A1, published 27 Sep. 2012, hereinafter Ho) and evidence provided by STN (STN Search conducted by USPTO STIC staff, accessed 01 Aug. 2026, hereinafter STN).
Regarding claims 1-4, Miyagishima teaches a conductive composition comprising a binder, a photosensitive compound, metal nanowires, a solvent, and a cross-linking agent (Abstract and paragraph 0008). Miyagishima teaches the cross-linking agent is an azide compound (paragraph 0070).
Miyagishima does not disclose the claimed azide compound.
Ho teaches the azide as a cross-linking moiety: diethyleneoxy bis(4-azido-3,5-difluoro-2,6-dihexylbenzoate) (Abstract and paragraphs 0139-0140). Ho teaches any suitable polymer may be used with this azide compound (paragraph 0019).
According to STN (pages 38-39), the chemical structure of this azide is:
PNG
media_image2.png
672
834
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This azide corresponds to Formula 1 of claim 2 and Formula 2 of claim 4.
Given that Miyagishima and Ho are drawn to compositions comprising a polymeric binder and an azide cross-linking agent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the azide taught by Ho as the azide cross-linking agent in the conductive composition taught by Miyagishima. Since Miyagishima and Ho are both drawn to compositions comprising a polymeric binder and an azide cross-linking agent, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in using the azide taught by Ho as the azide cross-linking agent in the conductive composition taught by Miyagishima. Further, Ho teaches his azide compound provides a cross-linking function without degrading the properties of the polymer it is cross-linked to, or an adjacent polymer layer (paragraph 0008).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyagishima et al. (US Patent Application 2012/0088189 A1, published 12 Apr. 2012, hereinafter Miyagishima) in view of Ho et al. (US Patent Application 2012/0244294 A1, published 27 Sep. 2012, hereinafter Ho) and further in view of Kang et al. (KR 2015/0022420 A, published 04 Mar. 2015, hereinafter Kang) and evidence provided by STN (STN Search conducted by USPTO STIC staff, accessed 01 Aug. 2026, hereinafter STN).
Regarding claim 7, Miyagishima in view of Ho teaches the elements of claim 1.
Miyagishima in view of Ho does not disclose the use of a hydrophilic capping layer.
Kang teaches binding a hydrophilic compound to the nanowires (Abstract), and the hydrophilic compound is an amine (chemical structure in paragraph 0028 of the original Korean patent document, reproduced above).
Given that Miyagishima and Kang are drawn to conductive composition comprising binders and metal nanowires, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a hydrophilic amine compound as taught by Kang to the conductive composition taught by taught by Miyagishima in view of Ho. Since Miyagishima and Kang are both drawn to conductive compositions comprising a binder and metal nanowires, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating a hydrophilic amine as taught by Kang into the conductive composition taught by Miyagishima in view of Ho. Further, Kang teaches incorporating a hydrophilic compound provides nanowires with improved dispersibility (paragraph 0006).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Kang, Miyagishima, Ho, nor the references cited below disclose an azide compound having only azide or halogen substituents on the terminal benzene rings, nor do these references teach that the azide compound taught by Ho would cross-link with the hydrophilic compound taught by Kang.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mehenni and Bakr (“Synthesis of novel bis(perfluorophenyl azides) coupling agents: Evaluation of their performance by crosslinking of poly(ethylene oxide),” React.&Func.Polym., Vol. 71, pp. 1110-1117, published 11 Aug. 2011, hereinafter Mehenni) teaches the use of azide compounds similar to the claimed compounds with different L linkages. Mizuno et al. (US Patent Application 2015/0017457 A1, published 15 Jan. 2015, hereinafter Mizuno) teaches a transparent conductive film comprising a thermosetting resin, metal nanowires, and a bisazide compound.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN VINCENT LAWLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9603. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached on 571-272-1123. 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.
/JOHN VINCENT LAWLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights