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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-28 in the reply filed on 02/25/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would not be an undue burden to search all of the claim s1-29. This is not found persuasive because Groups I and II are patentably distinct from each other as outlined in the Requirement for Restriction/Election, an examination burden exists due to the inventions having an acquired separate status in the art in view of their different classification; the inventions have a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subjection matter; and the inventions require a different field of search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.3.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “…further comprises of pure silver” should read “further comprised of pure silver.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 19, 22, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landa et al. (US 2019/0172967) in view of Liu et al. (CN 116031327).
As to claim 1, Landa et al. discloses a process for forming electrode gride lines (see 0023 and 0043), comprising providing a polymer layer as transfer substrate (see 100 of 1A, 0069 ); applying conductive paste onto a formed side of the polymer layer to at least completely fill a trench in the formed side (see 120 of Fig. 1B, 0083), and removing excess conductive paste from a surface of the polymer layer (see 130 of Fig. 1B; 0083), ensuring that a surface of the trench and a surface of the conductive paste are coplanar (see Fig.1B); providing a base material, aligning and bonding the formed side of the polymer layer applied with the conductive paste to the base material (150 of Fig. 1C and paragraph 0107), and transferring the conductive paste onto the base material through a transfer method with a pressure of 0.1 to 50 kgF/cm2, temperature of 60-180C (see Fig. 1C, 0032, 0107, and 0113); removing the polymer layer to retain the conductive paste on the base material (see Fig. 1D and paragraph 0111); and sintering the paste onto the base material to form electrode grid lines with a preset aspect ratio (see 0039 and 0066-68).
PNG
media_image1.png
515
991
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Landa et al. fails to explicitly teach a pressure of 1-20MPa, a temperature of 80 to 180C and a duration of 0.5 - 10 mins as required by claim 1.
Landa et al. does teach the pressure can be 0.1 to 50 kgF/cm2 (about 0.01 MPa to 4.9 MPa) and temperature of 60-180C which overlaps the claimed range. 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).
As to the duration of the process parameter for transferring, Liu et al. teaches a process for transfer printing silver electrodes onto photovoltaic cells and teaches heating and pressing the transfer structure at about 140C for 9 minutes (see ).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Landa et al. to include the duration of time taught by Liu et al in order to optimize transfer and adhesion of the conductive paste to the base material. Landa et al. teaches transferring using the temperature and pressure that overlap the claimed ranges, while Liu et al. demonstrates successful transfer of electrode material using a temperature and duration within the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized transfer duration as a result effective variable and would have used the claimed process parameters through routine experimentation to achieve successful transfer of the conductive paste especially in the absence of evidence of criticality in using the claimed range.
As to claim 5, the polymer layer is hot-embossed to form the electrode pattern (see 0025).
As to claim 19, Landa teaches filling the grooves, drying and cleaning/wiping using a doctor/squeegee until the conductive composition fills the grooves and are level with the polymer membrane (see 0013, 0019-022 and Fig. 1B).
As to claim 22, Landa teaches providing a silicon wafer as the base material and sintering the conductive paste at 150-800C (see 0035 and 0116).
As to claim 23, Landa teaches the conductive paste can be comprised of silver particles (see 0080, 0141).
Claim(s) 2, 14-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landa et al. (US 2019/0172967) in view of Liu et al. (CN 116031327) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhu et al. (CN 109483780).
The teachings of Landa and Liu et al. as applied to claim 1 are as stated above.
Landa and Liu fail to teach providing a preset mold complementary in terms of shape to an electrode pattern to be embossed and preparing a desired polymer layer on the mold according to the preset process parameter to serve as the transfer substrate as required by claim 2.
Zhu et al. teaches providing a master mold having raised micro/nanostructures, casting liquid PDMS onto the master, curing the PDMS, and peeling it form the master to obtain a polymer working mold having complementary grooves to serve as a transfer substrate (see abstract). Zhu et al. further teaches such a process as an alternative to embossing (see background).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective tiling date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Landa et al. to include forming the grooved transfer substrate as taught by Zhu et al. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to forming conductive structures on a patterned substrate using a transfer process where Zhu et al. teaches an alternative process for forming the patterned substrate. It has been established that the mere substitution of one known method for other with the same intended purpose provides predictable results.
As to claims 14 and 15, the mold can be formed of silicon (see Example 2) is in the shape of a rectangle (square shape- see example 2 and 3).
As to claim 16, the aspect ratio is 0.7 to 2 (see summary of invention) which overlaps the claimed range. 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).
As to claim 20, Landa and Liu teach heated pressure-assisted transfer onto silicon photovoltaic substrates. Zhu et al. teaches the substrate can be silicon, glass, PET or PI (see summary of invention).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landa et al. (US 2019/0172967) in view of Liu et al. (CN 116031327) and Zhu et al. (CN 109483780) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Harnois et al. (US 20190351696).
The teachings of Landa et al., Liu et al. and Zhu et al. as applied to claim 2 are as stated above.
Landa et al., Liu et al. and Zhu et al. fail to teach the transfer substrate is prepared b taking a 15-85 micron thick layer with a mold, drying the polymer at 100-125C, demolding and obtaining a micron/nanoscale electrode pattern as the transfer substrate as required by claim 3 or a thickness of 15-50 microns as required by claim 4.
Harnois et al. teaches water soluble PVA transfer film having a thickness of 50 microns and teaches baking/drying the film at about 100C (see 0057, 0086).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Landa et al., Liu, and Zhu et al. to include the transfer film thickness and drying conditions as taught by Harnois et al. One would have been motivated to do so both are directed to forming transfer substrates where Harnois et al. teaches an operable method of forming a transfer substrate of adequate thickness for transferring electrode lines.
Claim(s) 6, 12, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landa et al. (US 2019/0172967) in view of Liu et al. (CN 116031327) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and in further view of Magdassi et al. (WO2018163184).
The teachings of Landa et al. and Liu et al. as applied to claim 1 are as stated above.
Landa et al. and Liu et al. fail to teach forming the polymer by electrospinning or flatbed coating as required by claim 6.
Magdassi et al. teaches preparing a polymer transfer film by coating PVA solution onto a supporting substrate and drying the coating to obtain a transfer film (see experimental section)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Landa et al. and Liu et al. to include using the casting method taught by Magdassi et al. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to forming a transfer substrate where Landa et al. teaches the substrate can be formed by casting and Magdassi et al. teaches an operable method for forming a transfer substrate using a casting process.
As to claim 12, Magdassi et al. teaches the thickness of the PVA film is about 35 microns (see experimental section).
As to claim 21, Magdassi et al. teaches a conductive pattern carried by a water soluble PVA film and teaches placing the structure in 50C water (experimental section)., thereby dissolving the PVA while leaving the conductive pattern in tack. It would have been obvious to use the dissolvable PVA carrier of Magdassi et al. as an alternative to the transfer substrate of Landa et al. in order to provide an alternative method for removing the transfer substrate. It has been established the mere substitution of one known method for another with the same intended purpose of removing a temporary transfer material would provide predictable results.
Claim(s) 7 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landa et al. (US 2019/0172967) in view of Liu et al. (CN 116031327) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Tricoli et al. (US 20170100912).
The teachings of Landa et al. and Liu et al. as applied to claim 1 are as stated above.
Landa et al. and Liu et al. fail to teach the polymer is prepared by electrospinning as required by claim 6.
Tricoli et al. teaches that water soluble PVP and PVA can be prepared via electrospinning a base layer and used as a removable, sacrificial, self-sustaining support film. Tricoli et al. further teaches the film can be removed via dissolution or peeling (see 0011-0017, 0053, and 0057).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the polymer layer of Landa et al. using the electrospinning process of Tricoli et al. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to forming removable support films formed of polymers where Tricoli et al. teaches an alternative method for forming such polymer support films. It has been established that the mere substation of one known method for another having the same intended purpose provides predictable results.
As to claim 7, Tricoli et al. teaches the polymer film is formed by loading a spinning solution of polymer and solvent into a syringe and spinning using an electrospinning device; and allowing fiber to form a film on a device collecting the film to form the polymer layer (see 0016, 087-0088, 0191, 0202, 0210).
As to claims 24-25, Tricoli et al. teaches a water-soluble polymer of PVP.
Claim(s) 8, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landa et al. (US 2019/0172967) in view of Liu et al. (CN 116031327) and Tricoli et al. (US 20170100912) as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Zhou et al. (CN 108251917).
The teachings of Landa et al, Liu et al, and Tricoli et al. are as stated above.
Landa et al., Liu et al., and Tricoli et al. fail to teach the claimed spinning solution as required by claim 8.
Zhou et al. teaches supplying PVP, tetrabutyl titanate, ethanol, and acetic acid as an electrostatic solution to form a fibrous polymer layer. Zhou et al. teaches 0.34 g tetrabutyl titanate, 0.8 g absolute ethanol. 0.84 g glacial acid, and 0.14 g PVP to form a homogenous solution (see Example 2). Zhou et al. further states a solution contains about 15.5 – 16 wt. % TBT and 6.5 – 8.5 wt.% PVP, together with absolute ethanol and acetic acid (see Invention content section).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the PVP/TBT/ethanol/acetic acid spinning composition of Zhou et al. in the electrostatic process of Landa, Liu and Tricoli et al. since Zhou et al. teaches these combination of materials provides a homogeneous precursor solution suitable for electrospinning PVP fibers . The relative concentrations of PVP and tetrabutyl titanate are result effective variables and one having ordinary skill in the art would use the claimed range through routine experimentation in order to optimize the solution to have a suitable viscosity, spinnability, and fiber forming characteristics.
As to claim 10, Zhou et al. teaches spinning using a syringe with an inner diameter and a working voltage (see Invention content ).
As to claim 11, Zhou et al. further teaches post treating the collected electrospun fibers via annealing.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landa et al. (US 2019/0172967) in view of Liu et al. (CN 116031327) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Selvaganapathy et al. (US 20240066788).
The teachings of Landa et al. and Liu et al. as applied to claim 5 are as stated above.
Landa et al. teaches hot embossing but fails to teach the claimed temperature of 100-180C as required by claim 13.
Selvaganapathy et al. discloses a hot embossing process to form nanoscale patterns in polymer films (see abstract). Selvaganapathy et al. teaches using embossing temperatures of 110 to 140C (see 0013, 0145).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Landa et al. and Liu et al. to include using the embossing temperature as taught by Selvaganapathy et al. One would have been motivated to do since Landa et al. teaches hot embossing to form the pattern in the polymer film and Selvaganapathy et al. teaches operable temperatures that can be used to successfully form the pattern within the polymer layer.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landa et al. (US 2019/0172967) in view of Liu et al. (CN 116031327), and Zhu et al. (CN 109483780) as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Zhang et al. (CN 101795839).
The teachings of Landa et al., Liu et al. and Zhu et al. as applied to claim 2 are as stated above.
Landa et al., Liu et al., and Zhu et al. fail to teach ethe mold is coated with a self-assembled monolayer as required by claim 17 or the SAM material comprises the materials required by claim 18.
Zhang et al. teaches coating a patterned mold with a self-assembled release layer, including perfluoroether-silane release material to reduce adhesion during demolding (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Landa, Liu and Zhu et al. to include the release layer of Zhang et al. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to molds having release layers (see Landa et al. 0125-0127) to prevent adhesion during demolding where Zhang et al. teaches an alternative release material. It has been established that the mere substitution of one known element for another having the same intended purpose provides predictable results.
Claim(s) 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landa et al. (US 2019/0172967) in view of Liu et al. (CN 116031327) and Zhu et al. (CN 109483780) as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Saito (US 20220234383).
The teachings of Landa et al., Liu et al. and Zhu et al. as applied to claim 2 above.
Landa et al, Liu et al, and Zhu et al. fail to teach providing the bonding layer as stated in claim 26.
Saito teaches a transfer sheet having a PET backing layer supporting a PVA polymer layer and bonding the transfer sheet to the transfer target while peeling/separating the backing layer, followed by removal of the PVA layer (see abstract, 0012-014, and 0025).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Landa et al., Liu et al. and Zhu et al. to include providing the supported multilayer structure of Saito to improve dimensional stability and handling of the thin polymer transfer layer (see 0012 of Saito).
As to claim 27, Saito states the backing layer can be polyester such as PET (see 0044).
As to claim 28, Saito teaches separating the bonding layer and the substrate from the polymer layer (see 0007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest the step S11 as claimed where PVP and diphenylalanine are slowed mixed with a solvent of methanol and N,N-methyl acetamide to form the polymer solution.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cachet I Proctor whose telephone number is (571)272-0691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 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.
/CACHET I. PROCTOR/
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/CACHET I PROCTOR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights