Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/436,251

ELECTRONIC FUNCTIONAL MEMBER, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME, AND BIOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT SENSOR

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Apr 18, 2022
Examiner
MINCHELLA, ADAM ZACHARY
Art Unit
3794
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
The University of Tokyo
OA Round
2 (Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
216 granted / 338 resolved
-6.1% vs TC avg
Strong +34% interview lift
Without
With
+34.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
384
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.9%
-37.1% vs TC avg
§103
49.4%
+9.4% vs TC avg
§102
13.8%
-26.2% vs TC avg
§112
24.9%
-15.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 338 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION This action is pursuant to the claims filed on 12/02/2025. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 11-12, and 19 are pending. A final action on the merits of claims 1-2, 4-6, 11-12, and 19 is as follows. Response to Amendment Applicant’s amendment to the claims are acknowledged and entered accordingly. 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) 1-2, 4-6, 11-12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO 2017/203685) in view of Kimura (U.S. PGPub No. 2009/0130939) Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches An electronic functional member comprising: a fiber network configured to include a resin (Fig 1 fibrous resin composition 2), the fiber network being partially solved in water and partially remaining when immersed in water (Pg 5, para 4 of translation; “Further, the resin composition 2 may not be completely soluble in the living body. By partly dissolving, adhesion to a living body can be improved without lowering the strength of the fiber network”); and a conductive member formed on the fiber network (Fig 1, conductive coating portion 3); wherein the fiber network includes a resin (Pg 4 resin composition includes elastomers, acrylic, nylon, or polyester). Lee fails to teach a second resin of the fiber network, the first resin and the second resin are mutually different in solubility in water, and a crystallinity of the second resin is higher than a crystallinity of the first resin. In related prior art, Kimura teaches a similar device wherein a similar fiber network includes a first and a second resin ([0041] fiber includes a thermal adhesive resin and non thermal adhesive resin; non thermal adhesive resin disclosed as a polyester resin; thermal adhesive resin disclosed as low melting point resins described in [0034]), the first resin and the second resin are mutually different in solubility in water ([0041] non thermal adhesive is non water soluble; [0035] thermal adhesive is water soluble), and a crystallinity of the second resin is higher than a crystallinity of the first resin ([0034], thermal adhesive can flow (or melt) at easily reached temperatures (i.e., lower crystallinity); [0041-0042] non thermal adhesive resin has higher melting point than thermal adhesive, thus the non thermal adhesive resin is higher in crystallinity than the thermal adhesive resin). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polyester resin of Lee in view of Kimura to incorporate the polyester resin with a thermal adhesive resin having a lower crystallinity and mutually different solubility to arrive at the device of claim 1. Doing so would provide a fiber network that has a higher bending endurance, shape retention property, and air-permeability ([0031]). Regarding claim 2, Lee further teaches wherein the resin is a polyvinyl alcohol derivative (Pg 5, para 4 of translation). Regarding claim 4, in view of claim 1 as stated above, Kimura further teaches wherein the fiber network is configured by stacking: a first fiber network including a first fiber containing the first resin; and a second fiber network including a second fiber containing the second resin ([0040] cross section of conjugated fiber can be a multi-layer laminated form (i.e., a first fiber stacked on a second fiber)). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polyester resin of Lee in view of Kimura to incorporate the polyester resin fiber stacked with a thermal adhesive fiber resin to form the fiber network to arrive at the device of claim 4. Doing so would provide a fiber network that has a higher bending endurance, shape retention property, and air-permeability ([0031]). Specifically, providing the fiber network as stacked would be a simple substitution of one well-known cross sectional structure ([0040] disclosing sheath-core form) for another well-known cross sectional structure ([0040] multi-layer form) of a conjugated fiber network to yield the predictable result of a conjugated fiber network having increased bending endurance and shape retention property ([0031]). Regarding claim 5, in view of the combination of claim 1 as stated above, Kimura further teaches wherein the fiber network includes a fiber containing the first resin and the second resin ([0034] fiber network includes a conjugation of individual fibers of first and second thermal and non thermal resins). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polyester resin fiber of Lee in view of Kimura to incorporate the polyester resin fiber with a thermal adhesive resin fiber having a lower crystallinity and mutually different solubility to arrive at the device of claim 5. Doing so would provide a fiber network that has a higher bending endurance, shape retention property, and air-permeability ([0031]). Regarding claim 6, in view of claim 1 as stated above, Lee further teaches wherein the material of the resin composition is not specifically limited if it can form in fiber form (Pg 5, polyvinyl alcohol disclosed as dissolvable part of resin composition; Pg 7 translation, polyurethane disclosed as resin composition). Lee/Tsukada fail to explicitly wherein the fiber network includes a fiber containing the first resin and the second resin. In related prior art, Kimura teaches a similar resin fiber network comprising a fiber containing a first and second resin ([0039] [0041], conjugated fiber formed from plurality of resins).Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the resin network of Lee in view of Kimura to incorporate the composite fiber resin comprising fibers containing first and second resins to arrive at claim 6. Doing so would advantageously provide for a resin composition that is partly dissolvable which improves adhesion to the body without lowering the strength of the fiber network (Pg 5 Lee); and specifically providing a composite or conjugated resin fiber is a well-known technique in the art to yield predictable results therein of a multi-resin fiber that has a higher bending endurance, shape retention property, and air-permeability ([0031], [0039-0041]). Regarding claims 11-12, Lee further teaches wherein an occupancy of the fiber in the fiber network is 20% to 90%; wherein the occupancy of the fiber in the fiber network is 30% to 70% (opening ratio of fiber network is 10 to 99%; examiner notes Lee’s ‘opening ratio’ is calculated similarly to applicant’s disclosed occupancy). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to use an occupancy of the fiber in the fiber network from 20% to 90% and from 30% to 70% to arrive at claims 11 and 12 respectively, as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Regarding claim 19, in view of the combination of claim 1 above, Kimura further teaches wherein: a difference in crystallinity between the first resin and the second resin occurs as a result of heating and/or pressure bonding ([0034-0043] the thermal adhesive resin is meltbonded to non-thermal adhesive resin, thus having a lower crystallinity due to the heating). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. In the instant case, the applicant has appeared to fail to consider the teachings of the Kimura reference explicitly disclosing a conjugated fiber formed of a melt-bonded thermal adhesive resin and a non thermal adhesive resin, such that the non thermal adhesive resin has a higher crystallinity, than the thermal adhesive resin as disclosed in at least paragraphs [0034-0041]). 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 Adam Z Minchella whose telephone number is (571)272-8644. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri 7-3 EST. 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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at (571) 272-1213. 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. /ADAM Z MINCHELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 18, 2022
Application Filed
Jul 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 02, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 04, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12582339
ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS FOR PHYSIOLOGICAL MONITORING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576268
CONFORMABLE NEURAL INTERFACE DEVICE WITH HYDROGEL ADHESION AND METHODS OF USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569178
Electrode
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564729
DEVICE FOR TREATING BIOLOGICAL TISSUE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12558013
LOOP CONFIGURATION FOR CARDIAC CATHETER END EFFECTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+34.1%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 338 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month