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 .
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al., (US 20190006061; hereinafter Son) in view of Lee, (US 20200289017) and Connor, (US 20180303383).
Regarding claim 1, Son (Figure 1) discloses a stretchable nano-mesh bioelectrode ([0022]: stretchable electrode) comprising: an elastic mesh sheet ([0029]: stretchable substrate); a metal nanowire network having a portion impregnated onto the nanofiber elastic mesh sheet (stretchable substrate) through spray coating ([0035]); wherein a metal nanowire in the metal nanowire network is impregnated onto a surface of the elastic mesh sheet (stretchable substrate) through spray coating ([0035]).
Son fails to disclose that the elastic mesh sheet is a nanofiber elastic mesh sheet comprising polymer nanofibers formed by electrospinning and pores being unoccupied to improve air permeability and flexibility. However, Lee (Figures 1 and 6) teaches a stretchable nano-mesh bioelectrode ([0008]: conductive polymer bio-electrode) comprising a nanofiber elastic mesh sheet ([0009]: nano-porous permeable membrane) comprising polymer nanofibers formed by electrospinning ([0009], [0026]) and pores (nano-sized pores) being unoccupied to improve air permeability and flexibility ([0009], [0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Son to substitute the elastic mesh sheet disclosed by Son with the nanofiber elastic mesh sheet comprising polymer nanofibers formed by electrospinning and pores being unoccupied to improve air permeability and flexibility, as taught by Lee, since the modification would provide improved flexibility and bio-compatibility to the device (Lee; [0004], [0012]).
Son further discloses the nanofiber elastic mesh sheet having a thickness of 50 to 100 nm, but fails to disclose the thickness being 1 to 3 µm. However, Son teaches that the thickness may be adjusted by formation on the porous film by coating or filtration ([0047]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Son/Lee to include the thickness being 1 to 3 µm since Son teaches that the thickness may be adjusted by coating or filtration, 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. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Son further discloses that the metal nanowires have an average diameter of 10 to 100 nm ([0020]) and Lee further teaches that the diameter of the polymer nanofiber manufactured by the electrospinning is variable depending on the spinning conditions ([0057]), but Son/Lee fails to teach the specific diameter of the polymer nanofiber such that a diameter ratio of the metal nanowire and the polymer nanofiber is in a range of 1:5 to 1:100. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Son/Lee to include a diameter ratio of the metal nanowire and the polymer nanofiber is in a range of 1:5 to 1:100 since Lee teaches that the diameter of the polymer nanofiber manufactured by the electrospinning is variable depending on the spinning conditions, 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. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Son further discloses wherein the impregnation is performed so that the metal nanowire network is impregnated in a thickness direction through spray coating ([0035]), but Son/Lee fails to teach wherein the impregnation is performed so that specifically 20% by volume or more of the metal nanowire network is impregnated in a thickness direction. However, Connor teaches a stretchable nano-mesh bioelectrode, wherein the impregnation of a conductive material is performed so that specifically 20% by volume or more of the conductive material is impregnated in a thickness direction ([0291]-[0292]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Son/Lee to include the impregnation performed so that specifically 20% by volume or more of the metal nanowire network (which is the conductive material in Son) is impregnated in a thickness direction, as taught by Connor, since 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. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, Son/Lee further teaches wherein the pores (Lee; nano-sized pores) are formed by the nanofiber elastic mesh sheet (Lee; nano-porous permeable membrane) onto which the metal nanowire network is impregnated (Lee; [0009], [0026]).
Regarding claim 5, Son/Lee further teaches wherein the polymer comprises one or more selected from an olefin-based elastomer, a styrene-based elastomer, a thermoplastic polyester-based elastomer, a thermoplastic polyurethane-based elastomer, a thermoplastic acrylic elastomer, a thermoplastic vinyl-based polymer, a thermoplastic fluorine-based polymer, and a mixture thereof (Lee; [0026]).
Regarding claim 6, Son/Lee/Kim further teaches wherein the polymer has a glass transition temperature of 60°C or lower (Lee; [0026]: i.e. thermoplastic polyurethane-based elastomer has a glass transition temperature of 60°C or lower).
Regarding claim 8, Son (Figure 1) further discloses wherein the metal nanowires have a diameter of 1 to 80 nm ([0020]).
Regarding claim 9, Son (Figure 1) further discloses wherein the metal nanowires have an aspect ratio of 100 to 1,500 ([0020]: the wavy metal nanowires have an average diameter of 10 to 100 nm and a length of 10 μm or more).
Regarding claim 10, Son (Figure 1) further discloses wherein, when a stretching-releasing cycle is performed 500 times by applying a strain of 20% to the nano-mesh bioelectrode, a change in resistance of the nano-mesh bioelectrode is less than or equal to 5 folds of an initial resistance value before the application of the strain ([0045]).
Regarding claim 11, Son/ Lee/Kim further teaches a strain sensor (Son; [0003]: i.e. touch panel strain sensor) comprising the stretchable nano-mesh bioelectrode defined in claim 1, as taught by the Son/Lee combination.
Regarding claim 17, Son/ Lee/Kim further teaches wherein a size of the pores is in a range of 1 nm to 100 μm (Lee; [0009], [0026]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son/Lee/Kim, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Garnett et al., (US 20140090870; hereinafter Garnett).
Regarding claim 2, Son/Lee/Kim teaches the stretchable nano-mesh bioelectrode of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein a contact point between metal nanowires in the metal nanowire network comprises a welding point. However, Garnett (Figure 1) teaches a nanowire structure (100, 110, 120, 130) formed on a base layer (140), wherein a contact point between metal nanowires (100, 110, 120, 130) in the metal nanowire network comprises a welding point ([0033]-[0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Son/Lee/Kim to include a contact point between metal nanowires in the metal nanowire network comprises a welding point, as taught by Garnett, because the modification would maintain structural and functional characteristics of the nanowires, and preserve the integrity and flexibility of sensitive underlying materials (Garnett; [0022]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/05/2026, directed to the newly amended limitations of claim 1, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a new combination of references including newly found prior art reference Connor. In the new combination, Son teaches that the thickness may be adjusted by coating or filtration ([0047]), so Son/Lee may be modified to include the thickness being 1 to 3 µm since 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. MPEP 2144.05(I). Furthermore, newly found prior art reference Connor teaches a stretchable nano-mesh bioelectrode, wherein the impregnation of a conductive material is performed so that specifically 20% by volume or more of the conductive material is impregnated in a thickness direction ([0291]-[0292]). Therefore, the new Son/Lee/Connor combination teaches the invention as recited at least in amended claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CATHERINE PREMRAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-8013. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, 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.
/C.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/EUN HWA KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights