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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-19 and 21-24 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 3/10/26.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 3/10/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 2019/0225827).
Claims 1-3 and 9-10: Li teaches a composition comprising copper nanoparticles having a surfactant coating thereon (Abst.; ¶ 0032), wherein the copper nanoparticles are nanoplates (¶ 0036) and the surfactant is at least two amine surfactants (¶¶ 0032, 0063).
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.
Claims 1-10, 12 and 44-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2019/0225827).
Claim 1-3, 7 and 47: Li teaches a composition comprising copper nanoparticles having a surfactant coating thereon (Abst.; ¶ 0032), wherein the copper nanoparticles are a mixture of particles and nanoplates (¶ 0036). While Li does not expressly teach the percentage of particles which are nanoplates, Li teaches that the mixture can be adjusted to achieve the desired ink properties (¶ 0036). Where 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. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a mixture of at least 80% nanoplatelets with the remainder spherical nanoparticles depending on the desired properties with the predictable expectation of success.
Claims 4-6, 44, 45 and 48: Li teaches sizes on the order of 5-200 nm (¶ 0037), but fails to expressly teach the claimed thickness and aspect ratio. However, Li explains that the shape and size of the nanoparticles can be selected based on the desired ink properties (¶ 0036) and desired melting point of the particles (¶ 0058). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have arrived at the claimed size and aspect ratio with the predictable expectation of success.
Claims 9 and 10: Li teaches that the surfactant is at least two amine surfactants (¶¶ 0032, 0063).
Claim 12: Li teaches a fusion temperature of 100-200˚C (¶ 0105). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a temperature of 180-200˚C with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 46: Li fails to teach the circularity of the particles, but explains that the shape of the particles can be selected depending on the desired properties of the ink (¶ 0036). Where 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. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a circularity of 0.8 or less depending on the desired properties.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in light of Zinn (US 2010/0065616).
Claim 11: Li fails to teach that the amine is branched. Like Li, Zinn teaches a composition comprising amine coated copper nanoparticles for forming conductive traces (Abst.) and explains that a suitable amine for use as the surfactant is a branched amine like tripentylamine (¶¶ 0029, 0047). The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a branched amine as the surfactant in Li with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 13: Li is silent regarding a paste. However, Zinn teaches that the composition can be formed into a paste to make it more convenient for use as a solder (¶ 0048). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have made the composition of Li into a paste for more convenient use as a solder.
Claims 49-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in light of Hanni et al. (US 2017/025804).
Claims 49-51: Li teaches the inclusion of an organic matrix (¶ 0034), but fails to teach including micron sized metal particles. Hanni teaches a copper nanoparticle composition for forming metal traces (Abst.) and explains that the composition should include metal nanowires having a size of 5-10 µm (¶ 0062) to reduce the incidence of cracking during consolidation of the metal nanoparticles (¶ 0062). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have included metal nanowires in the composition of Li in order to have reduced cracking during consolidation of the copper nanoparticles with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 52: Hanni teaches 0.01-15% micro-sized particles, but Hanni does not clearly state the length and diameter of the wires, but teaches that each dimension of the wires is between 100 nm and 10 microns (¶ 0062). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a length of 5-10 microns and a diameter of 100-200 nm and a ratio of 10:1-40:1 with the predictable expectation of success.
Prior Art
US2020/0279792 is also cited for teaching a composition which is substantially the same as the one disclosed by Li.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571) 270-1034. 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.
/ROBERT A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights