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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 18, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: This claim recites the limitation “corrosive gas” in line 7. This is the first appearance of the limitation and should be amended to “a corrosive gas” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: This claim recites the limitations “corrosive gas” in line 6 and “a corrosive gas” in lines 7-8. The limitation in line 6 is the first appearance of the limitation and should be amended to “a corrosive gas” and the limitation in lines 7-8 should be amended to “the corrosive gas”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 4, 9, 11, 15 and 20 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.
Claim 4 recites the claim limitation “may include” in line 2. This limitation is indefinite since it is not clear if the claim has to or does not have to include polyvinyl pyrrolidone, polyvinyl alcohol, and/or poly(methyl methacrylate).
Claim 9 recite the claim limitations “80/20 to 20/20, preferably from 70/30 to 60/40, more preferably 65/35.” These claim limitations are indefinite since it is not clear which of the three ratios are to be used in the interpretation of the claim. For this Office Action, the broadest ratio of “80/20 to 20/80” will be used in for the interpretation of the claim.
Claim 11 recite the claim limitations “thickness of 0.1 to 10 um, such as 0.5 to 1.2 um”. These claim limitations are indefinite since it is not clear which of the two ranges are to be used in the interpretation of the claim. For this Office Action, the broadest range of “0.1 to 10 um” will be used in for the interpretation of the claim.
Claim 15 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 4 above.
Claim 20 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 9 above.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 9-15, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus et al. US2009/0087348 (called Claus hereinafter) in view of Vanheusden et al. US2006/0163744 (called Vanheusden hereinafter and applicant disclosed art).
Regarding independent claim 1, Claus teaches a corrosion sensor (Fig. 1A; para [0048]) comprising:
corroding metal nanoparticles (Fig. 1A; para [0010 and 0048]; nano-size particles 20 and 22) dispersed in electrically insulating polymer layers (Fig. 1; para [0011 and 0022]; linking agent material layers 12 and 16), wherein electrically conductive percolation paths are formed by the corroding metal nanoparticles in the electrically insulating polymer layers (Fig. 1A; para [0015 and 0048]),
wherein an increase in the electrical resistance of the corrosion sensor (Fig. 1A; para [0048]), under exposure to corrosive gas that corrodes the corroding metal nanoparticles, provides an indication of corrosion (para [0048]).
Claus fails to teach metal nanoparticles dispersed in an electrically insulating polymer matrix.
Vanheusden teaches metal nanoparticles dispersed in an electrically insulating polymer matrix (Figs. 1-4; metallic nanoparticles 2 in a capping agent 3 made of polyvinylpyrrolidone).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Claus with the metallic nanoparticle structure as described by Vanheusden for the purpose of forming a printable electrical conductor using ink that is deposited on a substrate.
Regarding claim 2, Claus and Vanheusden teach the corrosion sensor according to claim 1, Vanheusden further teaches wherein it is in the form of composite printing ink (Figs. 1-4; para [0031]; metallic ink 13 is printed on substrate 1).
Regarding claim 3, Claus and Vanheusden teach the corrosion sensor according to claim 1, Claus further teaches wherein the corroding metal nanoparticles are Ag, Cu and/or Fe nanoparticles and/or other metal nanoparticles (para [0020]; the nano-particles may be other metals such as silver, palladium, copper, or other similar metal).
Regarding claim 4, Claus and Vanheusden teach the corrosion sensor according to claim 1, Vanheusden further teaches wherein the electrically insulating polymer matrix may include polyvinyl pyrrolidone, polyvinyl alcohol, and/or poly(methyl methacrylate) (para [0031-0032]; polyvinylpyrrolidone).
Regarding claim 7, Claus and Vanheusden teach the corrosion sensor according to claim 1, Vanheusden further teaches wherein the metal nanoparticles are in-homogenously mixed in the electrically insulating polymer matrix (Figs. 1-4; nanoparticles 2 mixed in the capping agent 3), wherein encapsulated metal nanoparticles form percolative networks inside a porous structure formed by the electrically insulating polymer matrix (Figs. 1-4; nanoparticles 2 form percolative networks with the capping agent 3).
Regarding claim 9, Claus and Vanheusden teach the corrosion sensor according to claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the weight ratio of the corroding metal nanoparticles to the electrically insulating polymer matrix in the corrosion sensor is from 80/20 to 20/80, preferably from 70/30 to 60/40, more preferably 65/35.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Claus and Vanheusden to have the weight ratio of the corroding metal nanoparticles to the electrically insulating polymer matrix in the corrosion sensor is from 80/20 to 20/80, preferably from 70/30 to 60/40, more preferably 65/35. Vanheusden teaches that the weight ratio of the metallic nanoparticles to the capping agent will usually be not lower than about 5:1, but it may be lower (para [0154]). Thus, one skilled in the art may produce a metallic nanoparticle with capping agent with a weight ratio within the claimed ranges by making the metallic nanoparticles smaller which increases the total surface area required to be covered by the capping agent for the purpose of improving the structural integrity of the printed feature on a variety of substrates and allowing the particles to improve contact with each other (para [0302]).
Regarding independent claim 10, Claus teaches a use of a corrosion sensor (Fig. 1A; para [0048]) including corroding metal nanoparticles (Fig. 1A; para [0010 and 0048]; nano-size particles 20 and 22) dispersed in electrically insulating polymer layers (Fig. 1; para [0011 and 0022]; linking agent material layers 12 and 16), wherein electrically conductive percolation paths are formed by the corroding metal nanoparticles in the electrically insulating layers (Fig. 1A; para [0015 and 0048]),
wherein an increase in the electrical resistance of the corrosion sensor (Fig. 1A; para [0048]), under exposure to corrosive gas that corrodes the corroding metal nanoparticles, provides an indication of corrosion for monitoring presence of a corrosive gas (para [0048]).
Claus fails to teach metal nanoparticles dispersed in an electrically insulating polymer matrix; and wherein the corrosion sensor in the form of composite printing ink is printed on a substrate.
Vanheusden teaches metal nanoparticles dispersed in an electrically insulating polymer matrix (Figs. 1-4; metallic nanoparticles 2 in a capping agent 3 made of polyvinylpyrrolidone); and wherein the corrosion sensor in the form of composite printing ink is printed on a substrate (Figs. 1-4; para [0031]; metallic ink 13 is printed on substrate 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Claus with the metallic nanoparticle structure as described by Vanheusden for the purpose of forming a printable electrical conductor using ink that is deposited on a substrate.
Regarding claim 11, Claus and Vanheusden teach the use of the corrosion sensor according to claim 10, Vanheusden further teaches wherein the corrosion sensor in the form of the composite printing ink is printed on the substrate in a composite printing ink layer thickness of 0.1 to 10 μm, such as 0.5 to 1.2 μm (para [0062]; various thickness of the metallic ink within the claimed ranges).
Regarding claim 12, Claus and Vanheusden teach the use of the corrosion sensor according to claim 10, Vanheusden further teaches wherein the substrate is an electronic component (para [0073]; the metallic inks may be used on RFID antennas and tags, digitally printed multi-layer circuit boards, and other components).
Regarding independent claim 13, Claus teaches a method for monitoring presence of a corrosive gas (Fig. 1A; para [0048]), the method comprising attaching a corrosion sensor (Fig. 1A; para [0048]) to a substrate (Fig. 1A; flexible base material 18), the corrosion sensor including corroding metal nanoparticles (Fig. 1A; para [0010 and 0048]; nano-size particles 20 and 22) dispersed in electrically insulating polymer layers (Fig. 1; para [0011 and 0022]; linking agent material layers 12 and 16), wherein electrically conductive percolation paths are formed by the corroding metal nanoparticles in the electrically insulating polymer layers (Fig. 1A; para [0015 and 0048]),
wherein an increase in the electrical resistance of the corrosion sensor (Fig. 1A; para [0048]), under exposure to corrosive gas that corrodes the corroding metal nanoparticles, provides an indication of corrosion (para [0048]),
subjecting the corrosion sensor to an atmosphere to be monitored (para [0048]; exposed to corrosion atmospheres), and
measuring an increase of electrical resistance in the corrosion sensor (para [0048]; change in resistivity to indicate absence or presence of a chemical).
Claus fails to teach metal nanoparticles dispersed in an electrically insulating polymer matrix.
Vanheusden teaches metal nanoparticles dispersed in an electrically insulating polymer matrix (Figs. 1-4; metallic nanoparticles 2 in a capping agent 3 made of polyvinylpyrrolidone).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Claus with the metallic nanoparticle structure as described by Vanheusden for the purpose of forming a printable electrical conductor using ink that is deposited on a substrate.
Regarding claim 14, Claus and Vanheusden teach the corrosion sensor according to claim 2, Claus further teaches wherein the corroding metal nanoparticles are Ag, Cu and/or Fe nanoparticles and/or other metal nanoparticles (para [0020]; the nano-particles may be other metals such as silver, palladium, copper, or other similar metal).
Regarding claim 15, Claus and Vanheusden teach the corrosion sensor according to claim 2, Vanheusden further teaches wherein the electrically insulating polymer matrix may include polyvinyl pyrrolidone, polyvinyl alcohol, and/or poly(methyl methacrylate) (para [0031-0032]; polyvinylpyrrolidone).
Regarding claim 18, Claus and Vanheusden teach the corrosion sensor according to claim 2, Vanheusden further teaches wherein the metal nanoparticles are in-homogenously mixed in the electrically insulating polymer matrix (Figs. 1-4; nanoparticles 2 mixed in the capping agent 3), wherein encapsulated metal nanoparticles form percolative networks inside a porous structure formed by the electrically insulating polymer matrix (Figs. 1-4; nanoparticles 2 form percolative networks with the capping agent 3).
Regarding claim 20, Claus and Vanheusden teach the corrosion sensor according to claim 2, but fail to teach wherein the weight ratio of the corroding metal nanoparticles to the electrically insulating polymer matrix in the corrosion sensor is from 80/20 to 20/80, preferably from 70/30 to 60/40, more preferably 65/35.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Claus and Vanheusden to have the weight ratio of the corroding metal nanoparticles to the electrically insulating polymer matrix in the corrosion sensor is from 80/20 to 20/80, preferably from 70/30 to 60/40, more preferably 65/35. Vanheusden teaches that the weight ratio of the metallic nanoparticles to the capping agent will usually be not lower than about 5:1, but it may be lower (para [0154]). Thus, one skilled in the art may produce a metallic nanoparticle with capping agent with a weight ratio within the claimed ranges by making the metallic nanoparticles smaller which increases the total surface area required to be covered by the capping agent for the purpose of improving the structural integrity of the printed feature on a variety of substrates and allowing the particles to improve contact with each other (para [0302]).
Claim(s) 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus, in view of Vanheusden and further in view of Campbell et al. US2020/0264093 (called Campbell hereinafter).
Regarding claim 8, Claus and Vanheusden teach the corrosion sensor according to claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the corrosive gas is at least one of SO2 and H2S.
Campbell teaches wherein the corrosive gas is at least one of SO2 and H2S (para [0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Claus and Vanheusden with the corrosive gas sulfur dioxide and/or hydrogen sulfide as described by Campbell for the purpose of using a known corrosive gas with a corrosion sensor assembly to measure the amount of corrosion on a corrodible component and to measure the electrical resistance of the corrodible component.
Regarding claim 19, Claus and Vanheusden teach the corrosion sensor according to claim 2, but fail to teach wherein the corrosive gas is at least one of SO2 and H2S.
Campbell teaches wherein the corrosive gas is at least one of SO2 and H2S (para [0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Claus and Vanheusden with the corrosive gas sulfur dioxide and/or hydrogen sulfide as described by Campbell for the purpose of using a known corrosive gas with a corrosion sensor assembly to measure the amount of corrosion on a corrodible component and to measure the electrical resistance of the corrodible component.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the prior arts of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest:
“wherein the sensitivity of the corrosion sensor to the corrosive gas is dependent on the weight ratio of the corroding metal nanoparticles to the electrically insulating polymer matrix in the corrosion sensor, wherein the sensitivity of the corrosion sensor to the corrosive gas is increased with an increased weight ratio of the corroding metal nanoparticles to the electrically insulating polymer matrix in the corrosion sensor, wherein the sensitivity of the corrosion sensor to the corrosive gas is decreased with a decreased weight ratio of the corroding metal nanoparticles to the electrically insulating polymer matrix in the corrosion sensor.”
Regarding claim 6, the prior arts of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest:
“wherein the sensitivity of the corrosion sensor to the corrosive gas is dependent on the porosity of the corrosion sensor, wherein the sensitivity of the corrosion sensor to the corrosive gas is increased with an increased porosity of the corrosion sensor, wherein the sensitivity of the corrosion sensor to the corrosive gas is decreased with a decreased porosity of the corrosion sensor.”
Regarding claim 16, the prior arts of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest:
“wherein the sensitivity of the corrosion sensor to the corrosive gas is dependent on the weight ratio of the corroding metal nanoparticles to the electrically insulating polymer matrix in the corrosion sensor, wherein the sensitivity of the corrosion sensor to the corrosive gas is increased with an increased weight ratio of the corroding metal nanoparticles to the electrically insulating polymer matrix in the corrosion sensor, wherein the sensitivity of the corrosion sensor to the corrosive gas is decreased with a decreased weight ratio of the corroding metal nanoparticles to the electrically insulating polymer matrix in the corrosion sensor.”
Regarding claim 17, the prior arts of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest:
“wherein the sensitivity of the corrosion sensor to the corrosive gas is dependent on the porosity of the corrosion sensor, wherein the sensitivity of the corrosion sensor to the corrosive gas is increased with an increased porosity of the corrosion sensor, wherein the sensitivity of the corrosion sensor to the corrosive gas is decreased with a decreased porosity of the corrosion sensor.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Srinivasan et al. discloses “Method for monitoring localized corrosion of a corrodible metal article in a corrosive environment” (see US2003/0146749)
Hamann et al. discloses “Corrosion sensors” (see US2012/0038377)
Chu et al. discloses “Method for sulfur-based corrosion testing” (see US2012/0074968)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID B FREDERIKSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571)272-7924. 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.
/DAVID B FREDERIKSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights