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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Species: Ag nanoparticle; Cu micron particle) in the reply filed on 2 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9 and 10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 2 March 2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear what is the scope of dimensions of “metal micron particles” and “metal nanoparticles”. Any sized particle can have its size characterized in terms of some number of microns or some number of nanometers, and so it is unclear how these claimed limitations are to be understood as defining the size of the respective particles. It is further remarked that, even in dependent claim 5, the claimed diameter of 0.5 microns is considered a size suitable for a metal micron particle, even though it seemingly could also be a size suitable for a 500 nm metal nanoparticle. Thus, it is also unclear whether certain sizes could be characterized as sizes suitable for both nanoparticles and micron particles. For example, were the “metal particle” of 10 microns, could there be 500 nm nanoparticles on the surface even if, perhaps, a 0.5 micron metal micron particle could not have them? Or, is a 0.5 metal micron particle having 500 nm metal nanoparticle also encompassed? The rejection applies to Claim 4 because Claim 4 does not define “metal micron particle,” and the rejection applies to Claim 5 because Claim 5 does not define “nanoparticles”. The terminology is not apparently defined by the Specification, and it is unclear what prior art definition is being relied upon, if one is.
Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear whether “adsorbed” reflects a specific type (e.g., physisorbed) or range of types of adsorbed bonding (as opposed to metallurgical or some other bonding) or is simply a descriptive statement of the nature of the arrangement of the respective particles, equivalent to, for example, “disposed on”. Furthermore, the Specification refers to the “adsorption” as being a consequence of reaction between particle surfaces. In what sense is this “adsorption”? See Specification (page 9).
Regarding Claim 2, it is unclear whether “physical bonding” is necessarily to the exclusion of chemical bonding, or not necessarily. The Specification (at page 9) appears to characterize a reaction as causing the physical bonding even though “reaction” would seemingly constitute chemical bonding. Thus, it is unclear what is meant.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chretian USPA 2009/0301344. Chretian teaches an ink for annealing (paragraphs 51 and 81) wherein the ink comprising particles (claimed “metal micron particles”) that can be copper (paragraph 31) that are relatively larger (paragraph 35: up to 1000 nm, which is 1 micron) that serve as core (paragraph 30) and that are covered with shell that can be silver (paragraph 40) in form of particles that are relatively smaller (paragraph 46: from 1 to 10 nm). Chretian does not exemplify this configuration, but teaches that it may be desirable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to prepare composite particles of these compositions since Chretian suggests they may be desirable formulation. Chretian teaches that the composite can be made by a method that results in “smaller metallic nanoparticles forming a coating or shell around the larger nanoparticle cores” (paragraph 45). Chretian teaches that the “shell layer can include a layer of discrete smaller particles covering the nanoparticle cores (paragraph 49). Chretian teaches that the shell particles form on the core particles by mixing the respective particles together (paragraph 45-49 and 88). Thus, it would be expected that the smaller Ag particles are adsorbed on the Cu core in single layer meeting the structural requirements of Claim 1. Furthermore, in view of the uncertainty as to what this claimed “adsorbed” feature requires, it is interpreted broadly to have a meaning equivalent to “disposed on”. This is further likely because the shell thickness can be on the order of 1 nm thick (paragraph 43) and the shell-forming particles can be on the order of 1 nm thick (paragraph 46), which implies particles form a single layer. While Chretian teaches annealing by heat and not by photonic annealing, it would be expected that the compositions in Chretian could be annealed by photonic annealing since they meet the expressly claimed compositional and structural features that applicant specifies for achieving photonic annealing. The particles are considered adsorbed since they are characterized as being formed by simple mixing of the respective particle solutions (paragraph 48). Regarding Claim 2, since there are no chemical reactions that are characterized upon mixing, it would be expected that the adsorption is achieved by physical bonding. This is further the case because the Specification appears to allow for physical bonding to encompass chemical bonding processes (at page 9). Furthermore, if there are reactions in Chretian, such as when laser irradiation induces copper to act as seed for deposition (paragraph 88), this language of adsorption due to physical bonding would also appear to encompass such outcome. It is recognized that there could be adsorption as mediated by chemical and/or physical bonding or as mediated by chemical versus physical bonding, as could be construed in the art, but it is unclear whether the Specification is making such distinctions, and it is unclear that such distinctions are intended. This observation further supports Chretian’s disclosure as rendering obvious this feature. Regarding Claim 3, Chretian teaches varying the ratio of core and shell particles over a vast range (paragraph 47), which would render obvious incomplete coverage. Regarding Claim 4, sizes are suggested by Chretian (paragraph 46), rendering this feature obvious. Regarding Claim 5, sizes are suggested by Chretian (paragraph 43), rendering this feature obvious. Regarding Claim 6, Chretian teaches varying the ratio of core and shell particles over a vast range (paragraph 47), including 9:1, which would render obvious relative amounts. Regarding Claims 7 and 8, these claims are addressed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL E. LA VILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1539. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. from 9:00 a.m. ET to 5:30 p.m. 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, Humera N. Sheikh, can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/MICHAEL E. LA VILLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784 11 May 2026
Prosecution Insights