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 .
Drawings
The Drawings filed 13 December 2024 are approved by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner and an initialed copy is attached.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of the certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Citation Notation
The following citations are made for the convenience of the reader:
Citations to PG publications are made to paragraph number under the ¶ format. Citations to other publications made under the format “ col 1/2” or pp 1 are directed to column and line number or to a page - whichever is appropriate. It is noted that any reference to a figure or a table is also directed to any accompanying text in the specification or the document. Notwithstanding those citations, the reference(s) is (are) relied upon for the teachings as a whole.
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 5, 6, 13 and 14 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. The terms “easily-releasable” and “cleavage type” in claim 5 and 13 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “easily-releasable” and “cleavage type” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention (would be the threshold for the unit to be “easily-releasable”? “cleavage type”?). Claims 6 and 14 are dependent on claims 5 and 13 respectively thus inherit the same deficiencies.
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) 1-8 and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over So (JP-5764931-B2, a translation is provided).
Claims 1-4 and 11-12: So discloses a photosensitive paste comprising a conductive filler such as a silver powder, an organic component comprising a photopolymerization initiator, an alkali-soluble acrylic copolymer, a photosensitive monomer such as pentaacrylate (the same monomers listed in applicant’s specification) and a solvent (abs, pg. 1-4 and 6). Further, So discloses the thermogravimetric analysis of the cured and dried film to achieve the desired composite conductive pattern (abs, pg. 6 and examples). The So reference discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the claimed components in a singular example and the thermogravimetric range of the resulting product. Nevertheless, given that So discloses a silver powder, an organic component comprising a photopolymerization initiator, an alkali-soluble acrylic copolymer, a photosensitive monomer such as pentaacrylate and a solvent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the chemical art at the time of the invention to utilize any of the taught components since So teaches each one. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pursue the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success since the reference is directed to a similar field of endeavor. It is also noted that the fact that many components are disclosed would not have made any of them, such as the silver powder, an organic component comprising a photopolymerization initiator, an alkali-soluble acrylic copolymer, a photosensitive monomer such as pentaacrylate and a solvent, less obvious. Here, So discloses each of the claimed components and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection of the claimed components would be repugnant to a skilled artisan. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143. Additionally, it is noted that the claimed thermogravimetric range is construed as a result-effective variable/property, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result stemming from the components in the photosensitive paste. Given that the So reference discloses a similar photosensitive paste composition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize known variables, i.e. a thermogravimetric range, since the reference also discloses a similar end-product. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection or optimization of the claimed components would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Claims 5, 6, 13 and 14: So discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the ratio of the monomeric units. Given that the So reference discloses a similar photosensitive paste composition and is motivated to optimize the amounts of the components within the composition to gain the benefit of high conductivity and ease of pattern forming (pg. 1-4 and Tables 1 and 2 with accompanying text), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize known variables, i.e. a respective loading amount, since the reference also discloses a similar end-product. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection or optimization of the claimed components would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Claims 7, 8, 15 and 16: So discloses the silver powder having 0.5 to 10 microns with specific examples having a 2 micron size (Table 1 with accompanying text).
Claim(s) 1-8 and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura (JP-2001194779-A, a translation is provided).
Claims 1-4 and 11-12: Matsumura discloses a photosensitive paste comprising a silver powder, an organic component comprising a photopolymerization initiator, an alkali-soluble acrylic copolymer, a photosensitive monomer such as stearyl acrylate (the same monomers listed in applicant’s specification) and a solvent (abs, pg. 1-5 and Table 1 with accompanying text). Further, Matsumura discloses the thermogravimetric analysis of the cured and dried film to achieve the desired composite conductive pattern and thermal stability (abs, pg. 4-5 and examples). The Matsumura reference discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the claimed components in a singular example and the thermogravimetric range of the resulting product. Nevertheless, given that Matsumura discloses a silver powder, an organic component comprising a photopolymerization initiator, an alkali-soluble acrylic copolymer, a photosensitive monomer such as stearyl acrylate and a solvent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the chemical art at the time of the invention to utilize any of the taught components since Matsumura teaches each one. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pursue the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success since the reference is directed to a similar field of endeavor. It is also noted that the fact that many components are disclosed would not have made any of them, such as the silver powder, an organic component comprising a photopolymerization initiator, an alkali-soluble acrylic copolymer, a photosensitive monomer such as stearyl acrylate and a solvent, less obvious. Here, Matsumura discloses each of the claimed components and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection of the claimed components would be repugnant to a skilled artisan. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143. Additionally, it is noted that the claimed thermogravimetric range is construed as a result-effective variable/property, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result stemming from the components in the photosensitive paste. Given that the Matsumura reference discloses a similar photosensitive paste composition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize known variables, i.e. a thermogravimetric range, since the reference also discloses a similar end-product. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection or optimization of the claimed components would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Claims 5, 6, 13 and 14: Matsumura discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the ratio of the monomeric units. Given that the Matsumura reference discloses a similar photosensitive paste composition and is motivated to optimize the amounts of the components within the composition to gain the benefit of high conductivity and ease of pattern forming (pg. 1-4 and Table 1 with accompanying text), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize known variables, i.e. a respective loading amount, since the reference also discloses a similar end-product. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection or optimization of the claimed components would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Claims 7, 8, 15 and 16: Matsumura discloses a 2 micron silver powder (pg. 6, examples and Table 1 with accompanying text).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuthers can be reached at 571.272.7026. 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.
/TRI V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights