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 .
Response to Election/Restrictions
Applicant's timely election with traverse of Invention I, claims 1-4, in the reply filed 05/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Inventions I, II, and III are closely related and share a common inventive concept centered on the claimed conductive material composition (p. 1).
Examiner finds the applicant' s argument unpersuasive and maintains the restriction, since there is a search burden as the inventions are patentably distinct and independent Inventions I, II, and III are related as a product, a method of making a product, and a method of coating a substrate with a product.
Inventions I and II are related as product made and process of making. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case, the product of Invention I can be made by a materially different process such as a single-solution process. It is noted that while the searches of inventions I and II may be overlapping, there is no reason to believe that the searches would be co-extensive. In searching invention I, the examiner will be focusing on the patentability of the product itself and not the method of making the product as set forth in invention II. Conversely, in searching invention II, the examiner will be focusing on the patentability of the method of making the product and not the product itself. Accordingly, a search for both groups would pose an undue burden on the office.
Inventions I and III are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case, the method of coating a surface of Invention III is not limited to using the product of Invention I and vice versa. It is noted that while the searches of inventions I and III may be overlapping, there is no reason to believe that the searches would be co-extensive. In searching invention I, the examiner will be focusing on the patentability of the product itself and not the method of using the product as set forth in invention III. Conversely, in searching invention III, the examiner will be focusing on the patentability of the method of using the product and not the product itself. Accordingly, a search for both groups would pose an undue burden on the office.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper. Thereby the restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 5-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-4 are currently under examination.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuzaki (US 2006/0057451 A1, hereinafter Okuzaki).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Okuzaki teaches a conductive paste comprising a conductive polymer gel, and a conductive powder (claim 17), wherein the conductive powder includes a metal powder ([0233]). Okuzaki teaches that the metal powder imparts excellent conductivity ([0235]). The conductive paste of Okuzaki reads on the claimed conductive material.
Okuzaki also teaches that the conductive polymer gel can be obtained by adding a surfactant and an alcohol to a conductive conjugated polymer colloidal dispersion (abstract, [0030]). Thus, the conductive polymer gel of Okuzaki can comprise a surfactant, an alcohol, and a conductive conjugated polymer. The surfactant in Okuzaki reads on the claimed stirring auxiliary material.
Okuzaki also teaches that the alcohol preferably includes ethylene glycol ([0029]), which reads on the claimed conductivity enhancing material containing ethylene glycol. Okuzaki teaches that ethylene glycol is preferable because it exerts an effect of causing gelation even at low concentration and also has no volatility ([0102]).
Okuzaki further teaches that the conductive conjugated polymer contains poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene)-poly(styrenesulfonic acid) (PEDOT/PSS) ([0133], [0348], Examples 1-24).
Okuzaki does not teach a single embodiment with all the claimed elements together.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a conductive paste comprising a conductive powder which comprises a metal powder, and a conductive polymer gel which comprises a surfactant, an alcohol including ethylene glycol, and a conductive conjugated polymer containing poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene)-poly(styrenesulfonic acid) (PEDOT/PSS) as taught by Okuzaki, in order to make the paste having excellent conductivity, and the gel contained in the paste being easily gelatinized with a reasonable expectation of success, because the metal powder imparts excellent conductivity, and ethylene glycol exerts an effect of causing gelation at low concentration and also has no volatility as recognized by Okuzaki. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, Okuzaki teaches that the conductive paste can further comprise an antioxidant ([0262]).
Regarding claim 4, Okuzaki teaches that the conductive paste comprises a conductive polymer gel, a conductive powder, and a resin binder (claim 17), wherein the conductive powder includes conductive carbon and a metal powder ([0233]). Okuzaki also teaches that the conductive carbon is optional, the conductive powder can contain zero amount of the conductive carbon, and the conductive powder is the metal powder (Examples 20-23, Table 5).
Okuzaki further teaches that a ratio of ((G+Cp)/(G+P)) is preferably from 0.13 to 0.24, wherein G is the content of the conductive polymer gel, Cp is the content of a carbon component in the conductive powder, P is the content of the conductive powder ([0250]). Thus, when the content of a carbon component is zero in the conductive powder (i.e. Cp is zero), a ratio of (G/(G+P)) can be from 0.13 to 0.24, thus a ratio of (P/(G+P)) can be from 0.76 to 0.87.
Okuzaki further teaches that a ratio of ((G+P)/B) is preferably from 3/7 to 9/1, wherein G is the content of the conductive polymer gel, P is the content of the conductive powder, B is the content of the resin binder ([0252]). Thus, a ratio of ((G+P)/(G+P+B)) can be from 3/10 to 9/10.
Thus, a ratio of (P/(G+P+B)) can be from 0.23 to 0.78. Thus, the metal powder can be in an amount of 23% to 78% by weight in the conductive paste of Okuzaki, which overlaps with the claimed range of “60 to 80% by weight”.
Okuzaki also teaches that the metal powder can be in an amount of about 59% to about 62% by weight in the conductive paste (Examples 20-21, Table 5), which also overlaps with the claimed range of “60 to 80% by weight”.
Furthermore, a ratio of (G/(G+P+B)) can be from 0.04 to 0.22. Thus, the conductive polymer gel can be in an amount of 4% to 22% by weight in the conductive paste of Okuzaki.
Okuzaki also teaches that the conductive polymer gel can comprise 100 parts by weight of a colloidal dispersion PEDOT/PSS as a conductive conjugated polymer, and 10-50 parts by weight of ethylene glycol (Examples 10-12, Table 3, [0419]). Thus, the conductive conjugated polymer (i.e. a colloidal dispersion PEDOT/PSS) can be in an amount of about 67% to 91% by weight in the conductive paste of Okuzaki. The ethylene glycol can be in an amount of about 9% to 33% by weight in the conductive paste of Okuzaki.
Thus, the conductive conjugated polymer (i.e. a colloidal dispersion PEDOT/PSS) can be in an amount of about 2.7% to 3.6% by weight in the conductive paste of Okuzaki, which falls within the claimed range of “2.5 to 6.5% by weight”.
The ethylene glycol can be in an amount of about 0.36% to 1.3% by weight in the conductive paste of Okuzaki, which overlaps with the claimed range of “0.1 to 0.4% by weight”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIAJIA JANIE CAI whose telephone number is 571-270-0951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 571-272-2817. 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.
/JIAJIA JANIE CAI/Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights