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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 7/9/2026 is entered and fully considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the exposure and development process in KIM is required in the process. Upon review of the reference, applicant’s response is persuasive. The reference contemplates omitting the pre-bake and post-bake steps, but not the development step. The development step is described as taking 144 seconds. Accordingly, even if the steps are omitted, the time between claimed steps 2 and 3 would exceed the 60 seconds. While it would be generally desirable to shorten development time (increasing throughput and reducing costs), it is also not clear that one of ordinary skill would have any a reasonable expectation of success to reduce the development time to less than half. Furthermore without the development step there is no reason to perform two separate light irradiating steps as claimed.
Regarding new claim 21 applicant argues that the KIM reference does not teach the ink (applied in step 1) has an absorbance at 350-450nm with an optical path length of 10mm of 0.01-1. However, KIM teaches that the ink has precursor resin and silver salt that activate to UV light 330-500 [0080] and [0031]. Accordingly, the ink must have at least some absorbance at that wavelength or the ink would not be reactive. Silver ions are known to absorb and scatter UV light. Accordingly, the absorbance measurement can be a proxy measurement for the concentration of silver and generally changes in concentration are not patentable without showing criticality. The silver salt is a catalyst for electroless plating. The concentration of catalyst is a result effective variable because more catalyst causes faster plating.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (KIM et al. US 2010/0167081).
Regarding claim 21,
KIM teaches a coating process for an electromagnetic shielding layer [0002] where a catalyst precursor resin is deposited on a substrate before exposing to UV light at a first wavelength 375nm at 195 mJ/cm2 [0080]. A subsequent reduction step irradiates a UV at a second wavelength 330-500nm at 3.7 J/cm2 [0080]. The catalyst precursor resin has an inorganic silver salt [0031]. The reference does not expressly teach using a second wavelength higher than the first wavelength 375. However, the wavelength ranges overlap the claimed range of “greater than the first wavelength” and considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I. The exposure of the second UV-reduction is much higher (3.7 J/cm2) than the first UV exposure (195 mJ/cm2). The amount of catalyst is up to 2-40 parts by weight of the total composition [0035]. This is similar to the content metal of the “conductive” film is applicant’s specification [0083]. The similar metal loading is considered to make a “conductive” film.
KIM does not expressly teach the ink (applied in step 1) has an absorbance at 350-450nm with an optical path length of 10mm of 0.01-1. However, KIM teaches that the ink has precursor resin and silver salt that activate to UV light 330-500 [0080] and [0031]. Accordingly, the ink must have at least some absorbance at that wavelength or the ink would not be reactive. Silver ions are known to absorb and scatter UV light. Accordingly, the absorbance measurement can be a proxy measurement for the concentration of silver and generally changes in concentration are not patentable without showing criticality. The silver salt is a catalyst for electroless plating. The concentration of catalyst is a result effective variable because more catalyst causes faster plating. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to alter the concentration of silver salt in the solution of KIM as a change in concentration because increasing catalyst is a result effective variable exchanging speed for cost, MPEP 2144.05.II.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-15 and 17-19 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Applicant argues that the KIM reference performs light irradiation steps with a development step between that takes longer than 60 seconds. Accordingly, the reference does not teach less than 60 seconds between the required light irradiation steps. As noted above, the examiner finds the argument persuasive and the rejection is removed.
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 AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights