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
This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2023/055886 (filed 03/08/23), which application claims priority to FR2202323 (filed 03/16/22).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The Drawing filed 09/16/24 is objected to:
37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) states (emphasis added):
The different views must be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1, independent of the numbering of the sheets and, if possible, in the order in which they appear on the drawing sheet(s). Partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter. View numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation "FIG." Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation "FIG." must not appear.
Accordingly, applicant should submit a corrected Drawing without “Figure 1” and amend the specification to –-the Drawing-—(each occurrence).
Amendment(s)
The Substitute Specification filed 09/16/24 is entered.
The Preliminary Amendment filed 09/16/24 is entered.
Claims 1-23 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS statement filed 09/16/24 has been considered. An initialed copy accompanies this action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and/or 103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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(s) 1-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107365529 (IDS).
CN ‘529 discloses a conductive ink comprising (Abstract):
PNG
media_image1.png
362
1342
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examples of viscosity modifier(s) include hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose (page 2 of machine translation), and the reference discloses solvent combinations including water, monohydric alcohols (methanol, ethanol), ethylene glycol, and propylene glycol propyl ether (page 2-3 of machine translation). See also Examples 3-4.
Although the reference does not disclose the claimed combination of silver nanowires (5-20 nm), water, HPMC, and solvent mixture with sufficient specificity to anticipate the above listed claims, the examiner submits that the claimed selection of materials would have been obvious to the skilled artisan because such conductive ink compositions fall within the scope of those taught by CN ‘529. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, because such an ink composition containing silver nanowires, water, HPMC, and solvent mixture is expressly suggested by the CN ‘529 disclosure and therefore is an obvious formulation. All of 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 would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
With respect to dependent claims 2-6, and 10-16 the examiner submits that the skilled artisan would have to utilize only routine experimentation in order to arrive at suitable amounts/ratios of solvent in order to tailor the deposition characteristics of the ink. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The examiner respectfully submits that the same rationale applies to the viscosity range recited in dependent claim 17.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sepa et al US 9,672,950 B2.
The examiner notes that dependent article claim 23 (dependent on method claim 22, which claim depends from independent composition claim 1) is directed to a transparent conductive element produced via screen printing. The screen printing deposition process described in the instant specification would remove organic solvent(s) recited in the ink composition (instant specification para 0065-66), leaving a layer containing silver nanowires. Sepa discloses a transparent conductive layer containing AgNW, wherein the layer possess nearly identical sheet resistance and transmission values as the instant conductive element. See para 0090 of instant specification and Sepa Table 5. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In view of the foregoing, the above claims have failed to patentably distinguish over the applied art.
The remaining references listed on forms 892 and 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK T KOPEC whose telephone number is (571)272-1319. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00a-5:00p EST.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at 5712707733. 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.
/MARK KOPEC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
MK
July 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights