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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 and 17-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed on 06/23/2026 regarding claims 1-24 is fully considered. Of the above claims, claims 15-16 and 24 have been canceled; claims 1, 5, 7 and 23 have been amended.
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.
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) 1-8, 10, 14, 17 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0059839 A1) in view of Muramatsu (US 2013/0065034 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. teach a printing process (a method for forming the strain gauge 450 on the second substrate layer 283 by using the laser transfer printing method; [0217]; FIG. 14) in which a substrate to be printed is disposed opposite an ink carrier having a liquid ink layer (the ink present in the ink station 1440 is coated on one side of a transparent endless belt 1460 by a roller 1450; [0219]; FIG. 14) and the liquid ink layer is irradiated regionally (laser 1480 is applied to the transparent endless belt 1460, so that the ink is transferred from the transparent endless belt 1460 to the surface of the second substrate layer 283; [0220]; FIG. 14), wherein the liquid ink layer comprises a liquid and carbon containing particles X dispersed in the liquid (a transparent material used for the strain gauge may include carbon nanotubes and graphene; [0145]; the ink, i.e., the strain gauge constituent material stored in a supplier 1410 is supplied to an ink station 1440; [0218]; FIG. 14), where said carbon containing particles X are present as graphene particles, graphene oxide particles, graphite oxide particles, fullerene particles and particles of graphite intercalation compounds, structural analogue particles of graphite, or a combination thereof (a transparent material used for the strain gauge may include carbon nanotubes and graphene; [0145]), and further wherein the liquid ink layer is sufficiently transparent to attain a transparent ink layer on the substrate upon irradiation (the light from the backlight unit must transmit through the strain gauge 450; [0139]).
Further regarding claim 1, Kim et al. do not teach wherein the liquid ink layer contains 0.02 - 0.40 wt% an amount of the carbon containing particles X dispersed in the liquid.
Further regarding claim 1, Muramatsu teaches a liquid ink layer contains 0.02 - 0.40 wt% an amount of carbon containing particles X dispersed in a liquid (an amount of the mass of multi-layer graphenes is within a range from 0.001 to 50 wt %, preferably from 0.01 to 10 wt % based on the weight of a solvent; [0138]; for bringing the dispersion of multi-layer graphenes, the liquid of pulverized multi-layer graphenes and the dispersion of residual graphenes into contact with a surface of a substrate, a method such as laser transfer may be employed; [0147]) for the purpose of providing a transparent conductive film.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate wherein the liquid ink layer contains 0.02 - 0.40 wt% an amount of the carbon containing particles X dispersed in the liquid, as taught by Muramatsu, into Kim et al. for the purpose of providing a transparent conductive film.
Regarding claim 2, Kim et al. teach the printing process, which is performed by means of an ink printing apparatus (an optical system for irradiating a donor layer with a pulse laser having a wavelength of 532 nm; Figs 11A-11C) where the ink layer is irradiated regionally in such a way that
a) heat bulges are formed in the ink layer which cause splitting of ink droplets so that the ink printing apparatus is working as nozzle less droplet ejector for ejecting droplets of ink from the ink layer (through the control of the laser, predetermined ink is transferred to the second substrate layer 283 by heat generated by the laser and the pressure of the laser; [0220]; FIG. 14),
b) heat bulges are formed in the ink layer, wherein the bulges contact the substrate and wherein ink splitting is brought about by relative movement between substrate and ink carrier (this optional step not being considered), or
c) a combination of a) and b) (only step a has been considered).
Regarding claim 3, Kim et al. teach where the ink layer is irradiated regionally by means of a laser (laser 1480; FIG. 14).
Regarding claim 4, Kim et al. teach where the ink carrier and the ink layer are moved parallel to one another (the transparent endless belt 1460 is rotated by a plurality of guide rollers 1470; [0219]; the second substrate layer 283 is delivered in a predetermined print direction by a handling system 1490; [0220]; FIG. 14).
Regarding claim 5, Kim et al. teach where the substrate and the ink carrier are moved relative to one another at a speed which corresponds at least to a printing speed (the transparent endless belt 1460 is rotated by a plurality of guide rollers 1470; [0219]; the second substrate layer 283 is delivered in a predetermined print direction by a handling system 1490; [0220]; FIG. 14; the speed the second substrate layer 283 moves in the predetermined print direction corresponds to the printing speed).
Regarding claim 6, Kim et al. do not teach wherein the ink layer contains 10-99 wt.% of the liquid.
Further regarding claim 6, Muramatsu teaches the ink layer contains 10-99 wt.% of the liquid (an amount of a dispersant is within a range from 0.001 to 10 wt %, preferably from 0.02 to 5 wt % based on the weight of a solvent; [0137]; an amount of the mass of multi-layer graphenes is within a range from 0.001 to 50 wt %, preferably from 0.01 to 10 wt % based on the weight of a solvent; [0138]) for the purpose of preventing agglomeration of the graphenes in a solvent.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate wherein the ink layer contains 10-99 wt.% of the liquid, as taught by Muramatsu, into Kim et al. for the purpose of preventing agglomeration of the graphenes in a solvent.
Regarding claim 7, Kim et al. do not teach where at least 50 wt.% of all carbon containing particles dispersed in the liquid are present as the carbon nanotube particles, the graphite particles, the graphene particles, or a combination thereof.
Further regarding claim 7, Muramatsu teaches at least 50 wt.% of all carbon containing particles dispersed in the liquid are present as the carbon nanotube particles, the graphite particles, the graphene particles, or a combination thereof (an amount of the mass of multi-layer graphenes is within a range from 0.001 to 50 wt %, preferably from 0.01 to 10 wt % based on the weight of a solvent; [0138]; composition in which only multi-layer graphenes are mixed with the solvent) for the purpose of providing a transparent conductive film.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate where at least 50 wt.% of all carbon containing particles dispersed in the liquid are present as the carbon nanotube particles, the graphite particles, the graphene particles, or a combination thereof, as taught by Muramatsu, into Kim et al. for the purpose of providing a transparent conductive film.
Regarding claim 8, Kim et al. do not teach where the liquid contains water, organic solvents, or a combination thereof.
Further regarding claim 8, Muramatsu teaches the liquid contains water, organic solvents, or a combination thereof ([0133]) for the purpose of providing a transparent conductive film.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate where the liquid contains water, organic solvents, or a combination thereof, as taught by Muramatsu, into Kim et al. for the purpose of providing a transparent conductive film.
Regarding claim 10, Kim et al. do not teach where the ink layer contains polymers dispersed in the liquid, polymers dissolved in the liquid or a combination thereof.
Further regarding claim 10, Muramatsu teaches the ink layer contains polymers dispersed in the liquid, polymers dissolved in the liquid or a combination thereof (dispersant can be added to these solvents; [0134]-[0135]) for the purpose of preventing agglomeration of the graphenes in a solvent.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate where the ink layer contains polymers dispersed in the liquid, polymers dissolved in the liquid or a combination thereof, as taught by Muramatsu into Kim et al. for the purpose of preventing agglomeration of the graphenes in a solvent.
Regarding claim 14, Kim et al. teach a printing assembly containing the ink layer (FIG. 14).
Regarding claim 17, Kim et al. teach wherein the laser is a switched laser (through the control of the laser, predetermined ink is transferred to the second substrate layer 283 by heat generated by the laser and the pressure of the laser; [0220]; FIG. 14; the control of the laser suggests switching on and off of the laser).
Regarding claim 19, Kim et al. do not teach wherein the ink layer contains 15-95 wt.% of the liquid.
Further regarding claim 19, Muramatsu teaches the ink layer contains 15-95 wt.% of the liquid (an amount of a dispersant is within a range from 0.001 to 10 wt %, preferably from 0.02 to 5 wt % based on the weight of a solvent; [0137]; an amount of the mass of multi-layer graphenes is within a range from 0.001 to 50 wt %, preferably from 0.01 to 10 wt % based on the weight of a solvent; [0138]) for the purpose of preventing agglomeration of the graphenes in a solvent.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate wherein the ink layer contains 15-95 wt.% of the liquid, as taught by Muramatsu, into Kim et al. for the purpose of preventing agglomeration of the graphenes in a solvent.
Regarding claim 20, Kim et al. do not teach wherein the ink layer contains 50-90 wt.% of the liquid.
Further regarding claim 20, Muramatsu teaches the ink layer contains 50-90 wt.% of the liquid an amount of a dispersant is within a range from 0.001 to 10 wt %, preferably from 0.02 to 5 wt % based on the weight of a solvent; [0137]; an amount of the mass of multi-layer graphenes is within a range from 0.001 to 50 wt %, preferably from 0.01 to 10 wt % based on the weight of a solvent; [0138]) for the purpose of preventing agglomeration of the graphenes in a solvent.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate wherein the ink layer contains 50-90 wt.% of the liquid, as taught by Muramatsu, into Kim et al. for the purpose of preventing agglomeration of the graphenes in a solvent.
Regarding claim 21, Kim et al. teach where the ink layer contains no carbon black (a transparent material used for the strain gauge may include carbon nanotubes and graphene; [0145]; neither carbon nanotube or graphene is carbon black).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0059839 A1) as modified by Muramatsu (US 2013/0065034 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kleine Jaeger et al. (US 2012/0164777 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Kim et al. as modified by Muramatsu do not teach where the liquid ink contains free radical polymerizable organic solvents.
Further regarding claim 9, Kleine Jaeger et al. teach an liquid ink contains free radical polymerizable organic solvents (preference is given to terpineol, texanol, ethylene glycol, propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol; [0028]) for the purpose of providing an ink having a viscosity capable of printing a transparent conductive film.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate where the liquid ink contains free radical polymerizable organic solvents, as taught by Kleine Jaeger et al., into Kim et al. as modified by Muramatsu for the purpose of providing an ink having a viscosity capable of printing a transparent conductive film.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0059839 A1) as modified by Muramatsu (US 2013/0065034 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Therriault et al. (US 2018/0022023 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Kim et al. as modified by Muramatsu do not teach where the ink layer contains pigments.
Further regarding claim 11, Therriault et al. teach an ink layer contains pigments (the ink further comprises one or more additives including pigments; [0128]) for the purpose of changing the color of the ink.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate where the ink layer contains pigments, as taught by Therriault et al., into Kim et al. as modified by Muramatsu for the purpose of changing the color of the ink.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0059839 A1) as modified by Muramatsu (US 2013/0065034 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kleine Jaeger et al. (US 2012/0161081 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Kim et al. as modified by Muramatsu do not teach where the ink layer contains less than 0.4 wt.% carbon black.
Further regarding claim 12, Kleine Jaeger et al. teach an ink layer contains less than 0.4 wt.% carbon black (when the absorbent used is carbon black, the proportion of carbon black in the composition is in the range from 0 to 5% by weight; [0050]) for the purpose of using suitable absorbents for high absorption in a range of a laser wavelength.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate where the ink layer contains less than 0.4 wt.% carbon black, as taught by Kleine Jaeger et al., into Kim et al. as modified by Muramatsu for the purpose of using suitable absorbents for high absorption in a range of a laser wavelength.
Claim(s) 13 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0059839 A1) as modified by Muramatsu (US 2013/0065034 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kleine Jaeger et al. (US 2012/0312467 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Kim et al. as modified by Muramatsu do not teach where the ink layer contains 0.1-80.0 wt.% non-carbon particles with a diameter of 3-300 micrometer.
Further regarding claim 13, Kleine Jaeger et al. teach an ink layer contains 0.1-80.0 wt.% non-carbon particles with a diameter of 3-300 micrometer (a suitable adhesive which can be used to perform the process comprises 20 to 98% by weight of electrically conductive particles and 0.005 to 20% by weight of absorbent; [0013]; preferred as material for the conductive particles can be silver; [0026]; the conductive particles preferably possess a mean particle diameter of 0.001 to 100 mm; [0027]; suitable absorbent is carbon nanotubes; [0049]) for the purpose of producing electrically conductive contacts without the use of liquid metal solders.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate where the ink layer contains 0.1-80.0 wt.% non-carbon particles with a diameter of 3-300 micrometer, as taught by Kleine Jaeger et al., into Kim et al. as modified by Muramatsu for the purpose of producing electrically conductive contacts without the use of liquid metal solders.
Regarding claim 22, Kim et al. as modified by Muramatsu do not teach where the non-carbon particles are present as pigment particles.
Further regarding claim 22, Kleine Jaeger et al. teach the non-carbon particles are present as pigment particles (preferred as material for the conductive particles can be silver; [0026]; silver particles is a type of pigment particles) for the purpose of producing electrically conductive contacts without the use of liquid metal solders.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate where the non-carbon particles are present as pigment particles, as taught by Kleine Jaeger et al., into Kim et al. as modified by Muramatsu for the purpose of producing electrically conductive contacts without the use of liquid metal solders.
Regarding claim 23, Kim et al. as modified by Muramatsu do not teach where the ink layer contains 1.0-20.0 wt.% of the non-carbon particles as pigment particles.
Further regarding claim 23, Kleine Jaeger et al. teach the ink layer contains 1.0-20.0 wt.% of the non-carbon particles as pigment particles (a suitable adhesive which can be used to perform the process comprises 20 to 98% by weight of electrically conductive particles and 0.005 to 20% by weight of absorbent; [0013]; preferred as material for the conductive particles can be silver; [0026]; silver particles is a type of pigment particles) for the purpose of producing electrically conductive contacts without the use of liquid metal solders.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate where the ink layer contains 1.0-20.0 wt.% non-carbon particles as pigment particles, as taught by Kleine Jaeger et al., into Kim et al. as modified by Muramatsu for the purpose of producing electrically conductive contacts without the use of liquid metal solders.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0059839 A1) as modified by Muramatsu (US 2013/0065034 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Lehmann (US 2021/0053378 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Kim et al. as modified by Muramatsu do not teach where the substrate and the ink carrier are moved relative to one another at a speed which corresponds at least double to the printing speed.
Further regarding claim 18, Lehmann teaches a substrate and an ink carrier are moved relative to one another at a speed which corresponds at least double to a printing speed (substrate and ink carrier are preferably moved relative to one another at a speed which corresponds at least to the printing speed, more preferably at least double the printing speed; [0029]; [0079]; [0091]; FIG. 6) for the purpose of achieving a clean printed image and a high-resolution image.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate where the substrate and the ink carrier are moved relative to one another at a speed which corresponds at least double to the printing speed, as taught by Lehmann, into Kim et al. as modified by Muramatsu for the purpose of achieving a clean printed image and a high-resolution image.
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 KENDRICK X LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-3798. The examiner can normally be reached MWFSa 10am-8pm.
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, Douglas X Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 431-0716. 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.
14 July 2026
/KENDRICK X LIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/DOUGLAS X RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights