DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/22/2025 has been entered.
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, 4-6, 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).
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 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 Park 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).
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 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 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 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, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Garnett et al., (US 20140090870; hereinafter Garnett).
Regarding claim 2, Son/Lee 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 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]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son/Lee, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim, (KR 20110129113).
Regarding claim 3, Son/Lee teaches the stretchable nano-mesh bioelectrode of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the impregnation is performed so that 20% by volume or more of the metal nanowire network is impregnated in a thickness direction. However, Kim teaches a porous nanofiber structure (10) impregnated by a secondary element (30) so that 20% by volume or more of the secondary element (30) is impregnated in a thickness direction ([0040], [0043]). 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 20% by volume or more of the metal nanowire network (which is the secondary element in Park) is impregnated in a thickness direction, as taught by Kim, 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/22/2025, with regard to the newly amended claim limitations 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 newly found prior art references Son and Lee. Son discloses the base stretchable nanowire-based bioelectrode and Lee teaches the nanofiber elastic mesh sheet comprising polymer nanofibers formed by electrospinning and pores being unoccupied to improve air permeability and flexibility. In combination, the modified device teaches the invention as claimed at least in amended claim 1.
Conclusion
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