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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/26/2024, 12/2/2025, and 12/19/2025 have been considered by the examiner. Initialed copies accompany this action.
Drawings
The Drawings filed 7/26/2024 are approved by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felten (US 4,230,493) in view of Greenstein (US 4,032,350).
Regarding claim 1, Felten discloses a gold conductor composition comprising a gold powder, and an organic solvent (vehicle), wherein the gold powder comprises gold having an average particle size of about 0.5 to about 5 μm or less (col 2, ln 50-58). Felten does not disclose the organic solvent has a distance Ra in a Hansen solubility parameter from the gold powder of 7.0 MPa1/2 or more, and has an intrinsic viscosity value measured at a temperature of 25° C. and a shear rate of 4/s with a rotational viscometer of 1.5 mPa.s or more and 6.5 mPa.s or less. However, Felten discloses dibutyl carbitol can be is the solvent (Table I and V), which is the same solvent used in the claimed gold paste (para 0038). Therefore, the solvent disclosed by Felten would possess same property as claimed. “A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 II. Felten does not disclose the gold with a purity of 9.99% by mass or more is used. Greenstein discloses gold with a purity of 99.9% by mass or more (gold powder is A-1570 and A-1984 sold by Englehard Minerals and Chemical Company) is used to form a gold paste composition used in microelectronic circuitry. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to use gold with a purity of 99.9% by mass or more in the composition of Felten, thereby maintain electrical conductivity of the composition.
Regarding claim 2, Felten discloses the organic solvent has a boiling point of 140° C. or more and 360° C. or less (dibutyl carbitol has a boiling point of 256oC).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Felten discloses a content ratio of the gold powder is 85% by mass or more and 97% by mass or less based on a total mass of the gold paste (Example 14, Table V).
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenstein (US 4,032,350).
Regarding claim 1, Greenstein discloses a gold paste comprising a gold powder, and an organic solvent, wherein the gold powder comprises gold with a purity of 99.9% by mass or more (gold powder is A-1570 and A-1984 sold by Englehard Minerals and Chemical Company), and has an average particle size of10 μm or less. See the abstract, col 2, ln 3-19, col 8, ln 54-68. Greenstein does not disclose the organic solvent has a distance Ra in a Hansen solubility parameter from the gold powder of 7.0 MPa1/2 or more, and has an intrinsic viscosity value measured at a temperature of 25° C. and a shear rate of 4/s with a rotational viscometer of 1.5 mPa.s or more and 6.5 mPa.s or less. However, Greenstein discloses 2-ethylhexyl acetate can be used as the solvent (col 6, ln 15), which is the same solvent used in the claimed gold paste (para 0038). Therefore, the solvent disclosed by Greenstein would possess same property as claimed. “A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 II.
Regarding claim 2, Greenstein the organic solvent has a boiling point of 140° C. or more and 360° C. or less (2-ethylhexyl acetate has a boiling point of 199oC).
Claims 4, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindemann (US 3,404,024) in view of Felten (US 4,230,493) and Greenstein (US 4,032,350).
Regarding claims 4, 7 and 8, Lindemann discloses a dip coating method in which at least a part of an article to be coated is dipped in and pulled out (withdrawn) of a dipping tank holding a coating composition for applying the composition to the article to be coated (abstract, col 3, ln 16-24). The method eliminates sags on the article and an even film thickness obtained. Felten in view of Greenstein discloses a gold paste comprising a gold powder, and an organic solvent as defined in claim 1 above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to dip coating the article using the gold paste of Felten in view of Greenstein, which eliminates sags on the article and an even coating thickness.
Regarding claim 5, Lindemann discloses a pulling speed of the member to be coated is 1 mm/s or more (2 feet per minute, col 3, ln 22-24).
Claims 4, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindemann (US 3,404,024) in view of Greenstein (US 4,032,350).
Regarding claims 4 and 7, Lindemann discloses a dip coating method in which at least a part of an article to be coated is dipped in and pulled out (withdrawn) of a dipping tank holding a coating composition for applying the composition to the article to be coated (abstract, col 3, ln 16-24). The method eliminates sags on the article and an even film thickness obtained. Greenstein discloses a gold paste comprising a gold powder, and an organic solvent as defined in claim 1 above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to dip coating the article using the gold paste of Greenstein, which eliminates sags on the article and an even coating thickness.
Regarding claim 5, Lindemann discloses a pulling speed of the member to be coated is 1 mm/s or more (2 feet per minute, col 3, ln 22-24).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIDUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5455. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 10a-3p.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/HAIDUNG D NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
6/13/2026
Prosecution Insights