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 .
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Washima (U.S Patent Publication No. 2010/0288539) in view of Matsubara et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0235670) and Yoshiki et al (U.S. Patent # 8,012,676).
In the case of claim 1, Washima teaches a method for manufacturing a conductive substrate by forming a printed wiring board comprising conductor patterns on an insulating substrate (Abstract). The method of Washima comprised a step of forming a base material/metal patterns 2 on the substrate 1 wherein the base metal patterns comprised silver (Page 3 Paragraphs 0041 and 0050 and Figure 3B). After forming the base material 2 a resist film 6 was disposed/coated over the base material 2 followed by the step of exposing the resist film 6 by irradiating light from the opposite side on which the base material 2 was formed and then a step of developing the exposed resist film to form a resist pattern 8 (Pages 3-4 Paragraphs 0051 and 0054 and Figures 3C and 3D). Washima teaches a final step wherein a plating treatment was performed using the base material as a seed layer to form conductive thin wires/conductor pattern 4 (Pages 3-4 Paragraphs 0040 and 0052-0054 and Figures 3E and 3F).
Though Washima teaches a base material/silver pattern Washima does not teach that the silver pattern was mesh-shaped. However, Washima teaches that the printed wiring board was optically transparent (Pages 2-3 Paragraphs 0036-0039).
Matsubara teaches an electrically conductive film having a transparent base/substrate and a metal thin wire pattern which was optically transparent (Abstract and Page 1 Paragraphs 0001, 0008 and 0009). Matsubara teaches that the wire pattern was mesh shaped in order for the film to be optically transparent (Page 4 Paragraph 0078 and Page 6 Paragraphs 0092-0093).
Based on the teachings of Matsubara, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the base material/silver pattern of Washima to be mesh-shaped in order for the conductive thin wire to be optically transparent.
Though Washima teaches having formed an underlying silver pattern Washima does not teach that the pattern was formed by a photographic method.
Yoshiki teaches a method for forming a transparent conductive material comprising a conductive pattern containing silver on a support/substrate which was used for further plating processes (Abstract and Column 5 Line s20-42). Yoshiki teaches that the silver conductive pattern was formed by a photographic method wherein silver halide emulsion layer on a support was patternwise exposed to light followed by development to form a silver pattern (Column 5 Line 43 through Column 6 Line 11 and Columns 69-70 Claims 1, 2 and 16).
Based on the teachings of Yoshiki, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the base material/silver pattern of Washima by the photographic method of Yoshiki because Yoshiki taught a known process in the art for forming a transparent conductive pattern of silver.
As for claims 2-16, Washima teaches that that the underling silver pattern had a thickness of 100 nm (Page 4 Paragraph 0062) which was within the claimed range of 1 micrometer or less. Washima does not however, teach that the intersection growing ratio of the conductive thin wires was 1.0 to 1.5, that the line width of the conductive thin wire was 3.0 micrometers or less and that the ratio of a height of the conductive thin wire to a line width of the conductive wire was 1.10 or more.
However, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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). See MPEP section 2144.05.II.A. Furthermore, in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP section 2144.05.IV.A.
Matsubara teaches that the widths of the wire pattern affected the optical transparency of the wiring (Pages 4-5 Paragraphs 0079-0081) and taught an aspect ratio of wire height to line width W1 in the range of 0.1 to 2 which provided good sheet resistance without lowering light transmittance (Page 5 Paragraph 00820.
Based on the teachings of Matsubara, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined optimal intersection growing ratios and line widths for the conductive thin wire of Washima in view of Matsubara and Yoshiki through routine experimentation because the dimensions of the wire pattern affected the conductivity and transparency of the conductive thin wire.
Furthermore, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have had the ratio of conductive thin wire height to a line width of the wire be in the range of 0.1 to 2 because this ratio provided good sheet resistance without lowering light transparency. Furthermore, the range of 0.1 to 2 overlapped with the claimed range of 1.10 or more. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See section 2144.05.I of the MPEP.
Conclusion
Claims 1 through 16 have been rejected. No claims were allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P WIECZOREK whose telephone number is (571)270-5341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
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)272-1418. 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 P WIECZOREK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
