DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed September 10, 2025, has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 15-27 are pending and claims 21-27 are newly added.
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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 10, 2025, has been entered.
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, 2, 5, 6, 15 and 17-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maesani et al., (hereinafter 'Maesani,' U.S. PGPub. No. 2017/0273590) in view of Lovenich et al., (hereinafter 'Lovenich,' U.S. PGPub. No. 2016/0162063) and Wagner et al., (hereinafter ‘Wagner,’ U.S. PGPub. No. 2018/0200986).
Regarding independent claim 1 and dependent claims 4, 17-20, Maesani discloses a body (Figs. 1), comprising;
i) at least one first polymer segment (electrically conductive element 1, [0060], “The electrically conductive element (1) can be substantially made for example, but not limited to, of electrically conductive and stretchable fabrics and/or polymers, such as knitted fabric comprising or consisting of electrically conductive materials such as copper wires meshes or other electrically conductive materials.”) having a porosity p1 and an electrical conductivity c1, wherein the first polymer segment comprises a non-conductive polymer matrix and a conductive component disposed within the non-conductive polymer matrix ([0060] “The electrically conductive layer (1) can be substantially made for example, but not limited to, of electrically conductive and stretchable fabrics and/or polymers, such as knitted fabric comprising or consisting of electrically conductive materials such as copper wires meshes or other electrically conductive materials.”), and
ii) at least one further polymer segment (electrically insulating element 2; [0063], “The electrically insulating element (2) can be substantially made of any suitable insulating material such as for example, but not limited to, electrically insulating and stretchable fabric and/or polymers…”) being in seamless contact with the at least one first polymer segment (1) and having a porosity p2 ≠ p1 and an electrical conductivity c2 ≠ cl (as broadly claimed, the first and second polymer segments, consisting of different materials, would necessarily comprise different porosities and electrical conductivities).
Maesani is silent regarding wherein the conductive polymer comprises a polythiophene, wherein the polythiophene is a cationic polythiophene that is present in the form of a polythiophene/polyanion-complex, and wherein the polythiophene/polyanion-complex is a PEDOT/PSS-complex (claims 18-20).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lovenich teaches a similar body (Fig. 1) comprising a conductive polymer in the form of a PEDOT/PSS-complex ([0049]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the conductive polymer as taught by Maesani such that the conductive polymer comprises a polythiophene, wherein the polythiophene is a cationic polythiophene that is present in the form of a polythiophene/polyanion-complex, and wherein the polythiophene/polyanion-complex is a PEDOT/PSS-complex, as taught by Lovenich since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Further, this modification would have merely comprised a simple substitution of one well known conductive polymer for another in order to produce a predictable result, MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Maesani in view of Lovenich are silent regarding wherein the first polymer segment and the further polymer segment are fused in a border area such that materials of the first and further polymer segments flow into each other in the border area during formation, thereby forming a coherent material.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wagner teaches a similar system wherein “the first polymer layer 12 and the second polymer layer 14 are unified and at least partially fused together at their contact interface wherein polymer molecules from the first polymer layer are commingled with polymer molecules from the second polymer layer. These commingled molecules form a molecular entanglement region 16 at the interface of the two polymer layers 12 and 14.” ([0065]). This process is advantageous because it goes beyond merely pressing together solid polymer layers via conventual techniques. Rather it allows for dissimilar polymer layers to be unified at their contact surfaces and at least partially fuse together ([0065]), thereby providing a stronger and more durable dual layer configuration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the body as taught by Maesani in view of Lovenich to provide wherein the first polymer segment and the further polymer segment are fused in a border area such that materials of the first and further polymer segments flow into each other in the border area during formation, thereby forming a coherent material, as taught by Wagner. Doing so facilitates the joining of dissimilar polymer layers in a unified manner, thereby providing a stronger and more durable dual layer configuration
Regarding claim 2, Maesani discloses wherein p1>p2 (see [0060] and [0063], wherein the porosity of “knitted fabric comprising or consisting of electrically conductive materials such as copper wires meshes or other electrically conductive materials”, for example, would exceed the porosity of “Spandex, Lycra, Elastane.”
Regarding claim 5, Maesani discloses wherein the further polymer segment is made from non-conductive material ([0063], “The electrically insulating element (2) can be substantially made of any suitable insulating material such as for example, but not limited to, electrically insulating and stretchable fabric and/or polymers such as textiles derived from polyesther-polyurethane-copolymer, like Spandex, Lycra, Elastane...”).
Regarding claim 6, Maesani discloses wherein the body (Fig. 1) is comprised in a device selected from the group consisting of, or is a device selected from the group consisting of, a biosensor, a body-worn device having electrically sensing functionality and a body-worn device selected from the group consisting of a headphone, glasses, a headband, a chest-strap, an armband, a patch, a garment or a wrist-worn device ([0093], “The electrically insulating element (2) can be made of a wearable item such as a garment, cast, bandage, compression garment, orthoses and/or exoskeleton. For example, FIG. 7 shows one elastic, pervious, and insulating full body garment, comprising several distinct drawable areas (10) comprising the electrode previously disclosed. A user can fabricate electrodes of custom shapes by deposing or “drawing” the conductive material (3) on top of an electrically conductive layer (1), exposed in the drawable areas (10). The act of electrode fabrication by “drawing” or “painting”—i.e. by deposing conductive material (3)—is shown in FIG. 8.”).
Regarding claim 15, Maesani discloses a therapeutic current delivery or current receiving system comprising:
a therapeutic current delivery or current receiving device ([0022], “means for delivering electrical current and/or sensing electrical signals (9)”;
at least one cable connector (6) connected to the therapeutic current delivery or current receiving device ([0028], “In one embodiment, the electrode further comprises at least a conductor (6) operatively connected with the electrically conductive layer (1) and operatively connectable with means for delivering electrical current and/or sensing electrical signals (9).”.
In view of the prior rejection of Maesani in view of Lovenich and Wagner, the combination teaches c) the body of claim 1 connected to the at least one cable connector (see Maesani Fig. 1). See rejection of claim 1 above for the body of claim 1 and obviousness rationale.
Regarding claim 21, Maesani in view of Lovenich and Wagner teach all of the limitations of the body according to claim 1. In view of the prior modification of Maesani in view of Lovenich and Wagner, Lovenich teaches wherein the first polymer segment has an electrical conductivity cl of at least 0.001 S/cm (Fig. 1; see [0049], for conductive polymer in the form of a PEDOT/PSS-complex). See rejection of claim 1 above for obviousness rationale.
Maesani in view of Lovenich and Wagner are silent regarding wherein the further polymer segment has an electrical conductivity c2 of less than 1 x 10-9 S/cm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the body as taught by Maesani in view of Lovenich and Wagner to include wherein the further polymer segment has an electrical conductivity c2 of less than 1 x 10-9 S/cm, since the values claimed appear to lack criticality and 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 22 and 23, Maesani in view of Lovenich and Wagner teach all of the limitations of the body according to claim 1. In view of the prior modification of Maesani in view of Lovenich and Wagner, Wagner teaches wherein the seamless contact is achieved when producing the first and further segment by means of 3D-printing in which these regions are produced by dropwise deposition of a molten thermoplastic material ([0065], “In this embodiment, the first polymer layer 12 and the second polymer layer 14 are unified and at least partially fused together at their contact interface wherein polymer molecules from the first polymer layer are commingled with polymer molecules from the second polymer layer. These commingled molecules form a molecular entanglement region 16 at the interface of the two polymer layers 12 and 14. This molecular entanglement region 16 is most preferably formed by contacting the two polymer layers with each other while both are liquid or molten form.”). Further, this is seen as product by process as the process see MPEP 2113, I “…The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”
Regarding claim 24, Maesani in view of Lovenich and Wagner teach all of the limitations of the body according to claim 23. In view of the prior modification of Maesani in view of Lovenich and Wagner, Wagner teaches wherein the thermoplastic material is selected from a group consisting of acrylate or methylmethacrylate polymers or copolymers, acrylonitrile-butadiene- styrene polymers (ABS), polyvinylidene fluoride polymers, polyurethane polymers, polyolefin polymers, polyester polymers, polyamide polymers, polyimide polymers, styrene-ethylene- butylene styrene (SEBS) polymers, polyether ether ketone (PEEK) polymers, polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) polymers, polysulfone polymers, ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) polymers, polyethalene-naphthalate (PEN) polymers, aromatic polycarbonate polymers and mixtures of two or more of these polymers ([0071], “Suitable thermoplastic polymer materials include polyolefin homopolymers, polyolefin copolymers, cyclic olefin homopolymers, cyclic olefin copolymers, vinyl polymers, ethylene vinyl acetate copolymers, ethylene octane copolymers, acrylonitrile copolymers, acrylic polymers, polyesters such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and PET copolymers, polyamides, polyvinyl chloride, polyvinylidene chloride, polycarbonates, polystyrenes, styrenic copolymers, polyisoprene, polyurethanes, fluoropolymers, ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), ethylene ethyl acrylate, ethylene acrylic acid copolymers, as well as mixtures and copolymers of the above polymers.”).
Regarding claim 25, Maesani in view of Lovenich and Wagner teach all of the limitations of the body according to claim 1. In view of the prior modification of Maesani in view of Lovenich and Wagner, Wagner teaches wherein the body is prepared by a process in which drops which have been deposited to form the first polymer segment come into contact with drops which have been deposited to form the further polymer segment, wherein in the border region of the different segments the drops at least partially "fuse" and/or "entangle" with one another before they solidify so that a seamless transition between the segments is obtained (see [0064] for adhesive drops). Further, this is seen as product by process as the process see MPEP 2113, I “…The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”
Regarding claim 26, Maesani in view of Lovenich and Wagner teach all of the limitations of the body according to claim 1. In view of the prior modification of Maesani in view of Lovenich and Wagner, Wagner necessarily provides wherein difference in the porosity of the first polymer segment and the further polymer segment is a consequence of a difference in fill factor that has been selected when printing the first and the further polymer segments (see [0065], for dual layer embodiment comprising first and second segments).
Regarding claim 27, Maesani discloses wherein the body is a skin electrode for detecting bioelectric signals, by means of electromyography (EMG) or electroencephalography (EEG) ([0038], “The electrically conductive layer (1) can be electrically connected through e.g. wirings (6) to an external device (9) for transcutaneous electrical stimulation or biological signal sensing, such as a neuromuscular electrical stimulator or an EEG/EMG/ECG acquisition system, depending on the application of interest.” See [0067], for EMG or EEG; also see [0093]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maesani in view of Lovenich and Wagner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Taniguchi et al., (hereinafter ‘Taniguchi,’ U.S. PGPub. No. 2005/0142970) in view of Maesani.
Regarding claim 16, Maesani in view of Lovenich and Wagner teach all of the limitations of the body according to claim 1. Maesani further discloses wherein the at least one first polymer segment (1) has a compression modulus ml and wherein the further polymer segment (2) has a compression modulus of m2 ≠ ml (as broadly claimed, because the first polymer segment and the further polymer segment are different materials, it naturally follows that the compression moduli would not be equal).
Maesani in view of Lovenich and Wagner are silent regarding wherein the first polymer segment has a compression modulus ml of less than 5000 MPa and wherein the at least one further polymer segment has a compression modulus m2 of at least 0.01 MPa.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Taniguchi teaches a similar material as Maesani, wherein “the sheet material is a three-dimensional knitted fabric showing a laying spread compression modulus of 20 to 150 N/mm.” (1MP = 1N/
m
m
2
). Taniguchi teaches in order to provide a soft elastic feel, kitted fabric should show a laying spread compression modulus in said range. Further, “[t]he laying spread compression modulus of the three-dimensional knitted fabric is adjusted by factors such as a size of a connecting yarn forming the three-dimensional knitted fabric, a density of the connecting yarn per unit area, an inclination of the connecting yarn, a thickness of the knitted fabric, and a heat set temperature during finish processing. The laying spread compression modulus must be determined while these factors are being fully considered.” ([0065]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the first polymer segment as taught by Maesani in view Lovenich and Wagner such that the first polymer segment has a compression modulus ml of less than 5000 MPa, as taught by Taniguchi, in order to provide a soft elastic feel. Doing so provides a more comfortably warn device for the user.
Regarding wherein the at least one further polymer segment has a compression modulus m2 of at least 0.01 MPa, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed September 10 with respect to claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 15-20 have been considered but are moot because the amendment has necessitated a new ground of rejection.
Applicant’s first argument, p. 2, that “Maesani and Lovenich do not disclose - "wherein the first polymer segment and the further polymer segment are fused in a border area such that the materials of the first and further polymer segments flow into each other in the border area to form a coherent material" is not found persuasive. It is the Examiner’s position that Wagner remedies any perceived deficiencies in the prior art. Wagner explicitly teaches, “the first polymer layer 12 and the second polymer layer 14 are unified and at least partially fused together at their contact interface wherein polymer molecules from the first polymer layer are commingled with polymer molecules from the second polymer layer. These commingled molecules form a molecular entanglement region 16 at the interface of the two polymer layers 12 and 14.” ([0065]). Therefore, Applicant is directed towards the rejection set forth above for further clarification.
Regarding Applicant’s second argument, p. 3, that “Maesani and Lovenich do not disclose – “wherein the first polymer segment comprises a non-conductive polymer matrix and a conductive component dispersed within the non- conductive polymer matrix,” this argument is not found persuasive. Maesani teaches, “The electrically conductive layer (1) can be substantially made for example, but not limited to, of electrically conductive and stretchable fabrics and/or polymers, such as knitted fabric comprising or consisting of electrically conductive materials such as copper wires meshes or other electrically conductive materials.” ([0060]). It is the Examiner’s position that, as broadly claimed, the electrically conductive layer (1) comprises electrically conductive materials, such as copper wires meshes or other electrically conductive materials, incorporated throughout the base material, thereby meeting the limitation of the claim.
Applicant notes, p.4, that, “The Applicant's structure facilitates stable integration with the further polymer segment to form a coherent body and avoids delamination associated with layered conductive fabrics. The claimed structure also allows conductivity to be tuned by adjusting the dispersion ratio of conductive particles, which is not possible in Maesani's inherently conductive element.” These arguments are acknowledged, however, Examiner notes that these features are not presently being claimed. For example, the independent claim is silent to the “structure [] allow[ing] conductivity to be tuned by adjusting the dispersion ratio of conductive particles” which Applicant appears to be arguing.
Applicant’s further arguments are directed towards newly added claims. Applicant is directed to the rejection above for further clarification.
No further arguments have been set forth regarding the dependent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE A DEDOULIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2459. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am to 5pm.
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, Linda Dvorak can be reached at 571-272-4764. 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.
/C.A.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights