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 .
The amendment of June 15, 2026 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claims 1-11 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sepa et al (US 2011/0174190) in view of Japan 2006-261570 (hereinafter ‘570), EITHER alone OR further in view of Japan 63-107769 (hereinafter ‘769).
Claim 1: Sepa provides a method of producing a laminate (layered structure) including a base (substrate) and a metal nanowire layer (conductor/conductive layer/film) (note 0038, 0089, 0107-0108, 0129-0135). The method includes spin coating on a base a composition/ink including metal nanowires and solvent (dispersing/suspending fluid, which can be a liquid such as water) to form a conductive film/layer (note 0134-0135, 0106-0107, 0110, 0129, 0167). Sepa indicates adjusting conditions, including loading amount, spin speed and time when forming the film, which can adjust thickness, and it is indicated a uniform film formation is desired (note 0134-0135, 0167-0168), where since the coating is a spin coating process, it is understood to be at least inclusive of the substrate rotating and the coating applied with rotation of the substrate.
As to providing the first and second rotating of the base as claimed when spin coating,
‘570 further describes substrate processing for providing even supply of liquid to the substrate to be processed when providing a rotating substrate on which liquid is to be supplied and the substrate processed uniformly (note 0001, 0006, 0011). ‘570 describes applying etching fluid, but is specifically not limited to this and can be used for any substrate processing apparatus that supplies a predetermined liquid to the surface of a rotating substrate to be processed to perform surface processing (note 0028). ‘570 indicates that when supplying liquid to the rotating substrate, in known processing, if the rotation is just at a holding so that the center of rotation of the substrate coincides with that of the holding stage, the circulation of the supplied liquid is insufficient at the center of the substrate, giving an uneven supply of liquid (note 0002). ‘570 teaches that instead, a substrate processing method is provided that while a predetermined liquid is supplied to a surface of the substrate while rotating the substrate, the position of the center of rotation of the substrate is moved at least once to a position within the substrate to be processed while the substrate is rotated (that is, there would be a first rotating of the base about a first rotation center of the base and a second rotating of the base about a second rotation center of the base, where the position of the first rotation center in the first rotating is different from the position of the second rotation center of the base in the second rotating), and by providing this, the liquid can be supplied evenly to the entire surface of the substrate and the entire surface of the substrate can be processed in a uniform manner (note 0011, 0020, 0017, figure 3). It is indicated that the holding plate (which moves the substrate, and resulting center of rotation of the substrate) can be constantly moved during the process or can be moved intermittently, or moved several times at predetermined intervals (note 0022, 0017, figure 3, so one of the movements can be to the first rotation center with the first rotating and a further of the movements can be to a second rotation center with the second rotating). Furthermore, ‘570 shows positions for rotating can be provided by moving the substrate on the holding plate to the left in a linear horizontal movement such that the center of rotation of the base at C15 becomes to the right of the center of the holding plate C11 (which would be at least suggested to be also a center of gravity of the base substrate, as the base substrate shown centered on the holder, and the base substrate can be simply a silicon wafer, for example, which the Examiner takes Official Notice would conventionally include round/circular wafers of the same thickness across, and of such a wafer of the same material, the center of the wafer would be the center of gravity) (note figure 3a, 0017), and the position for rotating can also be provided by moving the substrate on the holding plate to the right of the center of the holding plate in a linear horizontal fashion such that the center of rotation of the base at C15 becomes to the left of the center of the holding plate C11 (note figure 3b, 0017 and also 0023), and such left and right movement would provide for movement that can be symmetrical to the center of gravity of the base.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sepa to provide at least a first rotating of the base substate about a first rotation center of the base and spin coating a composition with metal nanowires and a solvent on a surface of the base and then provide a second rotating the base obtained in the first rotating about a second rotation center of the base and spin coating on the surface of the base on which the composition has been spin coated in the first step, the composition including metal nanowires and a solvent, where a position of a rotation center of the base in the first rotating is different from a position of a rotation center of the base in the second step as suggested by ‘570 with an expectation of helping to provide a desirably uniform coated film of the composition, since Sepa provides for using a spin coating process to apply a coating ink that is desirably uniform on a substrate, and ‘570 indicates that when applying a liquid to a rotating substrate it is desirable to supply a uniform covering, where the uniformity can be provided by moving the center of rotation of the substrate while applying the liquid, where the movement can be intermittent or at predetermined intervals, such that there would be a first rotating the base about a first rotation center of the base and spin coating/application of the liquid where the base has a first position of a rotation center of the base, and then a second rotating the base about a second rotation center of the base and spin coating/application of the liquid to the base (after the first rotating has been performed) where the base has a second/different rotation center of the base, and when using this process with Sepa, the composition ink (with metal nanowires and solvent such as water) of Sepa would act as the liquid for application. Note as worded that the composition in the first and second steps can be the same. Additionally as to the position of the first rotation center and the second rotation center of the base are substantially point-symmetric with respect to a center of gravity of the base, this would be further suggested by ‘570, where as discussed for ‘570 above, ‘570 would indicate how there can be a left and a right movement of the base in a linear horizontal fashion with respect to the center of gravity of the base, and ‘570 indicate that one would optimize the amount of movement for the specific processing conditions, etc. (note 0023-0024), and such optimization would provide the linear movement in a point symmetric pattern with regard to a center of the base. "[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).
Optionally, further using ‘769, furthermore, specifically as to the spin coating process in Sepa providing application of coating composition onto a rotating substrate, ‘769 further describes how coating with spin coating can be provided, including on a substrate with a moving center of rotation (note abstract, page 2, translation), describing how for normal spin coating, fluid coating composition is applied to a rotating substrate (note page 2, translation, figure 8), where it is described for ‘769 to apply the coating and rotate at a first position of center of rotation, then move the center of rotation and rotate again (note page 2, translation, figure 1). ‘769 further describes how substrate used can be round (circular), further suggesting the center of gravity of the substrate as the center of the substrate (note page 2, translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sepa in view of ‘570 to specifically understand that the spin coating process can be used in the form of applying coating composition/ink to a substrate with rotation, and further that providing at least two rotating of the base as claimed with movement of the center of rotation of the base would apply to spin coating processes as suggested by ‘769 with an expectation of providing a desirable coating, since Sepa provides spin coating of the nanowire/solvent composition ink and ‘570 shows a way to get an even covering when applying liquids with a moving rotation center of the base, and ‘769 shows that spin coating a composition involves applying the composition and rotating the substrate, and that one can also provide moving rotation center of the base for coating compositions, and also suggest how the substrate can be round.
Claims 2, 3, 6, as to the movement distance between the position of the rotation center of the at the first step and second step being 3-20 mm, ’570 indicates that the amount of movement of the holding plate (and therefore the resulting distance between the position of the rotation center of the base at the first and then second step, note 0020) may be determined appropriately depending on the processing conditions, including the rotation speed (note 0024), and therefore it would be suggested to optimize the movement distance, given the suggestion to optimize/determine the value based on the specific conditions used, and this would give a value in the claimed range. "[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).
Claims 4, 7, 8: as to the length of the metal nanowires, Sepa indicates the nanowires/nanostructures can have a length of no more than 55 microns long or 5-30 microns long (note 0062, 0054-0055), overlapping the claimed range, and it would have been obvious to optimize from this range, giving a value in the claimed range. "[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).
Claims 5, 9, 10, 11: as to the amount of metal nanowires used in the composition for the first and second rotating of the base, Sepa describes that a typical ink composition for use (which would be the composition used for the first and second steps, note the discussion for claim 1 above), can have 0.01 to 1.5 wt% metal nanowires (note 0107), and with an example of 0.1 to 0.2 wt% silver nanowires (note 0167), and where water can be a solvent/dispersing fluid (0110). As a result, it is understood that with the use of water (which can be 94.5 to 99.0 wt% of the ink, note 0107), it would be understood that the weight and volume of the ink in liters would be very close, and therefore the wt% of the metal nanowires would overlap with that claimed, and it would have been obvious to optimize from these ranges, giving a value in the claimed range. "[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).
Japan 2012-216535 also notes spin coating a metal nanowire containing composition on a substrate (note, used as provided with the IDS of February 2, 2025. 0111, 0113, 0040). Tsai et al (US 2018/0209927) notes providing a laminate with multiple layers 406 with metal nanowires (note figure 4, 0019, 0036).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is argued that the cited references would not teach or suggest the features of claim 1 of the position of the first rotation center of the base and the position of the second rotation center of the base are substantially point symmetric with respect to a center of gravity of the base.
The Examiner has reviewed these arguments, however, it is her position that ‘570 would suggest such features as now claimed and now discussed in detail in the rejection above, noting figures 3a, 3b as to how movement can occur and the suggestion at 0023-0024 to optimize the positioning. Applicant has not shown criticality of specifically using a point symmetric placement. Therefore, the rejection above is maintained.
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 KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights