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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10, 12-15, 19-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell et al. (“Conductive pathway on cotton fabric created using solution with silver organometallic compound,” Mater.Res.Express, Vol. 4, 106305, pp. 1-10, published 24 Oct. 2017, hereinafter Campbell) in view of Lee (US Patent Application 2014/0027038 A1, published 30 Jan. 2014, hereinafter Lee) and evidence provided by Muralidhara and Sreenivasan (“Thermal degradation kinetic data of polyester, cotton, and polyester-cotton blended textile material,” World Appl.Sci.J., Vol. 11, pp. 184-189, published 2010, hereinafter Muralidhara).
Regarding claims 10, 12-15, 19-21, and 23, Campbell teaches a knitted cotton fabric made conductive by thermal decomposition of an organometallic silver compound by heating to 225°C, in which the resistance is 1.70 Ohms over 10 cm, and the minimum resistance is 0.29 Ohms over 2 cm after repeated 10% elongations for a conductive fabric with an initial resistance of 0.34 Ohms over 2 cm (Abstract). Campbell teaches that the resulting silver particles are embedded onto the individual fibers of the cotton, including fibers on the interior of the fabric (Figure 4).
It is the examiner’s position that the use of a syringe to apply the organometallic silver compound corresponds to printing on the cotton (page 2, Metallizing the cotton section, 4th paragraph and Figure 2). Campbell also teaches that the cotton changes color during heating of the silver compound (page 2, Metallizing the cotton section, 5th paragraph), and Figure 2), and the silver compound may soak through the fabric (page 8, Adjusting the conductivity of cotton fabric section, 2nd paragraph). Thus, it is the examiner’s position that Campbell teaches the silver compound may be applied by a dyeing process.
Campbell does not disclose the inclusion of copper, gold, palladium, or platinum in the organometallic compound containing silver.
Lee teaches the production of a conductive cotton fiber or fabric by treating the fiber or fabric with a metallic precursor (metal complex) (Abstract). Lee teaches the metal in the metallic precursor may be a combination of silver and copper, gold, palladium, or platinum (paragraph 0026).
Given that Campbell and Lee are drawn to conductive cotton fabrics treated with metal precursors and given that Lee teaches the equivalence and interchangeability of a silver in a metal precursor and a mixture of metals in a metal precursor comprising the claimed mixture of metals, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a mixture of metals as taught by Lee in the metallic precursor in the conductive cotton fabric taught by Campbell. Since Campbell and Lee are both drawn to conductive cotton fabrics treated with metal precursors, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in using a mixture of metals comprising the claimed mixture of metals as taught by Lee in the metal precursor for the conductive cotton fabric taught by Campbell, since Lee teaches that a mixture of metals in a metal precursor is functionally equivalent to just silver in a metal precursor. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the mixture of metals taught by Lee and silver alone can be substituted one for the other in the metal precursor for the conductive cotton fabric taught by Campbell.
As evidenced by Muralidhara, cotton has a degradation onset temperature of about 310⁰C (page 187, 2nd column, Thermogravimetric analysis of control samples section, 1st paragraph).
It is the examiner’s position that Campbell in view of Lee’s invention would maintain the claimed resistance over 100 cycles, given the results shown on Figure 10.
Regarding claim 20, Campbell in view of Lee teaches the elements of claim 10, and as presented above Campbell teaches applying the organometallic silver compound by printing.
However, Campbell also teaches that the cotton changes color during heating of the silver compound (page 2, Metallizing the cotton section, 5th paragraph), and Figure 2), the silver compound may soak through the fabric (page 8, Adjusting the conductivity of cotton fabric section, 2nd paragraph), and the amount of silver compound applied to the cotton is related to the amount of silver compound applied to the cotton (page 8, Adjusting the conductivity of cotton fabric section, 2nd paragraph). Thus, it is the examiner’s position that Campbell teaches the silver compound may be applied by a dyeing process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 Oct. 2025 have been fully considered. New claim rejections are presented above, so this Office Action is Non-Final.
Applicant amended claim 10 and cancelled claim 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN VINCENT LAWLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9603. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 am to 5:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Callie Shosho, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-9603. 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.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JOHN VINCENT LAWLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787